Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Speaker: Order. In one more effort to help the House, I make an appeal for supplementary questions and answers to be briefer than they have been lately, otherwise we shall not get through the Order Paper —[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice hon. Members saying "Hear, hear", and I am very grateful.

Housing Repair Grants

Mr. Bob Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to alter the qualifying age for houses for repair grants.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): We have decided not to alter the qualifying age of houses for repair grants for the moment because the 1981 English house condition survey still showed that the incidence of serious disrepair was concentrated overwhelmingly in the pre-1919 housing stock.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister answer all the representations that are continually made about the Stockbridge area in my constituency, where 15 owner-occupiers have been blighted for more than 14 years by motorway proposals? They have, consequently, deferred repairs continually to the point where some of them—for example, those who have retired from work—cannot afford to carry out the repairs. Although the houses were constructed in 1939, surely these people should qualify for repair grants in compensation for the blight that has been visited on them, not by themselves, but by the Government?

Mr. Stanley: I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's correspondence with my hon. Friend about the problems in Stockbridge. However, we cannot have a different rule for Stockbridge compared with the rest of the country. The fact remains that about 93 per cent. of all the houses shown in the English house condition survey as being in serious disrepair are pre-1919, and it must make sense to concentrate the major effort in repair grants on those properties.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that a far wider issue is involved and that the most disastrous flats and houses are those that were built in the past 25 years by industrial building methods? Will the Minister

therefore make available additional grants to cover the whole cost of their repair and renovation, which would also provide jobs for a large number of unemployed building trade workers?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that repair grants are intended for properties in the private sector under the home improvement grant legislation. The wider problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions in connection with industrialised building is concentrated almost entirely in the public sector, and here we hope that local authorities will make full use of their increased allocations both this year and next.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Merseyside Task Force

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present working of the Merseyside task force; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): The task force continues to liaise with local authorities, public agencies and the private sector in taking forward an increasing list of initiatives on Merseyside. In addition to my frequent visits to the area, I receive regular reports from the task force.

Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State use his influence and support the task force by trying to unravel local government bureaucracy and red tape in this attempt to provide much needed jobs on Merseyside? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recent case I sent to him concerning an application in Aintree which would provide hundreds of jobs. Will he also seek to use his influence in the demolition and development of the Tate and Lyle site, which will provide many hundreds of jobs in the deprived Vauxhall area of my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.

Mr. Parry: May I ask the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions.

Mr. Parry: Does—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to continue, but I tell the rest of the House that those who have questions further down the Order Paper will suffer.

Mr. Parry: Does the Secretary of State intend to remain the Minister for Merseyside?

Mr. King: In view of the number of visits that I have already paid, I had hoped that there would not be much doubt on that matter. I intend to take a close interest in the affairs of Merseyside.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think that implicit in his question is a recognition of the dedicated way in which the task force is doing its work. Certainly it is doing all that it can to help in difficult circumstances. Might I add that the English Industrial Estates Corporation is closely concerned, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, in my presence, recently made the awards for the prize-giving for


the Tate and Lyle site and the possible redevelopment, which I hope will go ahead on a satisfactory basis. May I further add that I very much hope that everyone—I say this in the light of the present situation—will realise the importance of improving the industrial position on Merseyside and giving the best possible reputation to industrial activities there, which could not be more important at this time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What I have said about long supplementaries also applies to Ministers.

Mr. Alton: As one person in five on Merseyside is now out of work, what is the task force doing to attract new investment from big companies and financial institutions?

Mr. King: It is incredible that the hon. Gentleman can represent Liverpool in the House and ask Ministers what they can do to attract large-scale industrial investment to Merseyside at the time of a major industrial dispute that is doing enormous damage to Merseyside's reputation. I hope that he will join me in urging the earliest possible return to work so that the damage done to Merseyside can be minimised.

Mr. Hoyle: It is the management.

Mr. Squire: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about his renewed commitment to Merseyside. Is he aware that Merseyside councils, of a variety of political persuasions, have made clear to the Select Committee how much they welcome the action taken by the task force over a sustained period and how much they look forward to its work continuing?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. The task force is doing valuable work and I intend that to continue.

Mr. Oakes: Instead of hiding behind the Ford dispute, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much private capital has been attracted by the Merseyside task force, the success of which was the proud boast of his predecessor?

Mr. King: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was at the opening of the new flats, Minster court, which were developed entirely by private capital out of redundant public sector housing, but that is one example to which I draw attention. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figures today, but I shall try to give him some details of the new ventures that have taken place.
I am not hiding behind the Ford dispute. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that when one is trying to attract industry to Merseyside one cannot exaggerate the damage that results from such a dispute.

Mr. Allan Roberts: In order to enable the task force to work more effectively in Bootle, will the Minister include the inner city part of Bootle in the partnership area with Liverpool? As he is to remain as the Minister for Merseyside, will he arrange an urgent meeting with those Members of Parliament who represent Merseyside? When he next visits Merseyside will he meet the Labour representatives of the inner city part of Sefton, not the council leaders, who come from Southport and are resented by the people of Bootle?

Mr. King: I am willing to meet any hon. Members to discuss the problems of Merseyside. If there is any doubt

about that I confirm my willingness to do so now from the Dispatch Box. If there are points that councillors want to raise with me, I shall be happy to talk to them as well.

Water Supplies (Nitrate Levels)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present procedures for monitoring nitrate levels in public water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): Water undertakers regularly monitor the level of nitrates in public water supplies and there are effective arrangements to inform local public health authorities where recommended levels are exceeded, so that any necessary action can be taken.
These levels are based on worldwide evidence, and are recommended by the World Health Organisation. Provided they are observed we see no grounds for concern over the effects on health of nitrates in water supplies. I am reminding regional water authorities of their responsibilities in this matter.

Mr. Taylor: As nitrate pollution is increasing and broke through the 50mg per litre level twice in Essex last year, is there not a case for placing some restriction on the extravagant use of nitrates by farmers in the same way as industrialists are subject to severe restraints to ensure that they do not pollute water supplies? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show his concern by asking water boards to report to him when excess levels are created?

Mr. Shaw: I accept the point behind my hon. Friend's question. I reiterate that I am concerned about the increase of any pollutant, but he will be aware that treatment for nitrates is carried out which enables both potable water and high agricultural production to be maintained. That must be our objective.

Mr. Pavitt: In addition to nitrate content, has the Minister seen surveys of mercury content? Is he aware that more than 1 million people are using National Health Service hearing aid batteries that contain mercury? What is the Minister doing to ensure that we are not polluted by that?

Mr. Shaw: I am well aware that there are pollutants from batteries. That is a matter that county and refuse disposal authorities consider carefully. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a particular case, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that Dorset spring water is now available in the House. The level of nitrates in that water can go from nil up to 20–30 mg without damage to health because that is well within the permitted level? Is it not nonsensical that many people are scaremongering when there is no need for them to do so?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It is true that at present levels there is no ground for concern whatever. The nitrate content of water supplies varies substantially from one part of the year to another.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that almost everyone who has studied the problem will regard his reply


as somewhat complacent in view of the links between nitrosamines and cancer? Does he not understand that nitrates in drinking water present a potential medium-term serious threat to public health? What plans has he to deal with that? Has he considered the possibility of putting a tax on nitrogenous fertiliser?

Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of the anxiety that has been expressed. The best way to deal with it is to invite research. That, I am glad to say, is being done by the Medical Research Council, which has produced four studies into the problem.

Rates

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of non-metropolitan district councils that are intending to raise a lower rate for 1983–84 than 1982–83.

Mr. King: On the information currently available about 80 non-metropolitan district councils are intending to raise a lower local rate in 1983–84 than in 1982–83.

Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that answer will be satisfactory to the ratepayers of those councils. Is he aware that amongst that number is the Conservative-controlled borough of Hove, which is proposing to levy a lower rate next year for the sixth time in eight years, which demonstrates its skill in carrying out its responsibilities? Does not the borough of Hove demonstrate that there are far too many Socialist-controlled local authorities which disregard their responsibility to deliver their services and utilise their assets as effectively as possible and therefore impose unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on industry and households?

Mr. King: I congratulate the borough of Hove and those other boroughs that have reduced their rates as we said would he possible. I hope that many of the boroughs that indulge more in propaganda and pay less real attention to value for money will change their priorities.

Mr. Ashton: How many of those low-rate councils have provided free bus passes and cheap television licences for pensioners, have not cut their services to the disabled and have not made their work forces redundant in the past two or three years to secure reduced rates? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give a true comparison on those lines?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the matter objectively he will see that the truth is that some of those authorities with the highest rates often provide poor services as well.

Mr. William Hamilton: Name them.

Mr. King: The message that we have sought to deliver, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will join in supporting, is that value for money is a concept that should be supported regardless of political party.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can my right hon. Friend give any message to Lancaster city council, which is in a fortunate position similar to that of Hove, about its derelict land grant application, bearing in mind that it was told in February that some £2 million would be available if it was spent during the current financial year, which is clearly impossible? Is there any hope that such allocations can be carried forward into the next financial year?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend's question deals with capital expenditure, not rate levels. I admire his ingenuity in seeking to raise that question now, but the answer is no, Sir.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled council of Darlington, which has been able to cut 5p off its domestic rate because of the £640,000 profit made by its extremely efficient direct labour organisation?

Mr. King: I am delighted to welcome the conversion of the right hon. Gentleman to the cause of lower rates. He spends most of his time at the Dispatch Box claiming that higher rates do no damage to people or to industry.

Mr. James Lamond: Answer the question.

Mr. King: I certainly join in congratulating any authority that recognises the importance of rate levels, and I hope that the message of the Darlington reduction in rate levels is better understood by the GLC, ILEA and Islington.

Council House Building

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the number of council house building starts; and how these compare with the corresponding figures for 1978.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public sector house building starts for 1982 and 1983 to the most recent practicable date.

Mr. Stanley: There were 93,000 public sector starts in England in 1978 compared with 44,000 last year, of which 28,000 were for local councils. The provisional estimates for January 1983 are 4,000 public sector starts, 3,000 of them for local councils.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome home ownership, there are millions of people for whom it is never conceivable, in any circumstances, that they could become home owners? Is it not clear from the Minister's figures that he has destroyed all hope for hundreds of thousands of such people who are on council house waiting lists?

Mr. Stanley: I do not agree, although I recognise that there are those who will not be able to afford to buy. That is why we have been increasing the provision for local authorities over the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute towards making additional rented accommodation available in his authority, I hope that he will start prevailing on Cannock Chase council to make greater use of its allocation plus receipts, because three quarters of the way through this financial year it had spent only 24 per cent. of its allocation plus receipts.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the Minister is not aware that the Tories and the Liberals have now taken control of the Cannock Chase district council.

Mr. Skinner: Are not the real reasons that these figures are the lowest since the 1920s that the Tories have cut the housing subsidies and grants by half, that rents have risen by more than 125 per cent., and that 400,000 building


workers are on the dole? Is the Minister aware that during this week the Labour party has produced a document that lays out plans for jobs for the construction workers, a use for those millions of bricks lying unused, a freeze on rents, and homes for those who badly need them?

Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) that I am fully aware that the Liberals are the biggest single party on the Cannock Chase council, because I saw the council about the poor performance on the right to buy under Labour control a few months ago.
I have seen the document to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refers. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Cannock. If he is really exercised about increased jobs in the construction industry and increased housing provision, I hope that he will turn to the Bolsover council—which I am well aware is Labour controlled—as three quarters of the way through the financial year it had spent only 43 per cent. of its allocation plus receipts.

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister remains inaccurate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible way for councils to reduce their housing lists is to make sure that they do not leave houses lying empty for months, and sometimes years on end, by encouraging their tenants to take advantage of the tenants charter to sublet, and to convince others to do as the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did and buy their homes so that the councils can reinvest the capital receipts in building new homes to rent?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. It is a matter of considerable concern that all local authorities should make the best use of existing council housing stock. When about 20,000 local authority dwellings are vacant for more than a year, and 300,000 local authority dwellings are difficult to let, local authorities should be concentrating on making proper use of existing housing stock.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister acknowledge that Labour authorities in particular are likely to spend their full allocation of HIP money by the end of this financial year and that he cannot draw conclusions on three or six months' spending? Will he acknowledge that even if the HIP allocations are fully spent the number of council houses started in the best two years under the Tory Government will be less than in any one year under a Labour Government?

Mr. Stanley: I do not agree that all Labour authorities will spend their HIP allocation. If the hon. Lady will look at the table that I put in the Library for expenditure over the first three quarters of this financial year she will see that many authorities, of all political persuasions, look like not merely not spending their allocations plus receipts, but not even spending their allocations.
As to general progress, the hon. Lady should look at the complete picture for housing. It shows that in the past year public sector housing starts have increased by 39 per cent., that private sector starts increased by 20 per cent. for the second year running, that public sector home improvements rose by 26 per cent. and that private sector home

improvements are at their highest since 1974. The hon. Lady should be congratulating the Government on their performance on housing.

Gleneagles Agreement

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the Gleneagles agreement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I receive many differing representations on this subject.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister investigate breaches of the Gleneagles agreement such as the recent case when the Transkei rugby team came here, with special facilities laid on for it by the British consulate in Cape Town, yet he, the Minister responsible for sport, apparently did not know that the team was here until after it had arrived? Will he also investigate the South African slush fund designed to smash the Gleneagles agreement, such as the so-called "Freedom in Sport" campaign, which is run by Right-wing extremists such as the Tory hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle)?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have no locus to intervene or investigate those organisations. The visit by the Transkei rugby team was not a visit of a representative team. It could not be, because Her Majesty's Government do not recognise Transkei, or any of the South African so-called homelands, as independent. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, as there is no provision in the United Kingdom visa regulations to deny visas merely because the applicants wish to take part in sport, we have no locus to prevent that taking place.

Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are opposed to racial discrimination in sport and that anyone considering sending a representative team to South Africa should take into account the possible repercussions on sports other than their own?

Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse my right hon. Friend's observations and echo everything that he said. I repeat to the House our complete commitment to the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport in 1977. We stand by our commitments, made at the Lusaka and Melbourne Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, that multi-racial sport is supreme.

Mr. Denis Howell: In view of the assessment that I have made that in the past year South African sources have either paid out or have on offer to sportsmen, mostly British, a sum of between £5 million and £6 million for the purpose of undermining and severely damaging British sporting interests, what assessment has the Minister been able to make of the dangers that this is providing to the Edinburgh Commonwealth games next time round, to the future of international test cricket and to other major international sporting events, which are now seriously threatened by this financial seduction?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall not comment on the figure that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. I can only hope that everyone will recognise the potential seriousness of what is happening and the impact that it could have on our relationships elsewhere. I simply hope that all governing bodies will draw their players' attention to the need to reject these short-term financial inducements. They do


lasting damage to the reputations of governing bodies. The funds are directed towards one objective—to disrupt our highly successful Commonwealth sporting links.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend so wedded to the Gleneagles agreement that he is willing to submit to the blackmail and bullying to which he is now being subjected by black African countries? Will he now come clean and admit that the conditions under the Gleneagles agreement by which South Africa was accused of organising sport on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin, do not exist in that country?

Mr. Flannery: Nonsense.

Mr. Carlisle: Therefore, for the sake of the freedom of the individual and the freedom of sport, the agreement should now be abandoned.

Mr. Flannery: If they did not exist the hon. Gentleman would not go there.

Mr. Macfarlane: The Gleneagles agreement, or the Commonwealth declaration on apartheid in sport, were discussed at the Melbourne conference. It was made quite clear by all Heads of Government at that meeting, just 18 months ago, that we continue to uphold the principles of that declaration.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate that we live in a free society, but is not the way in which South African officials undermine our major sporting organisations and corrupt our leading sportsmen by financial and other inducements insidious? Should not the Government make it clear to those officials that the way in which to obtain full participation in international sport is to insist that their Government get rid of this despicable apartheid system?

Mr. Macfarlane: Everyone has his own views about what may or may not be done. The hon. Gentleman must understand my locus on this subject. That is why I have urged governing bodies to take an opportunity to talk to their players to ensure that they do not go for the offered short-term financial inducements. Present circumstances are fraught with risk and danger.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that as genuine efforts have been made by members of all races in South Africa to make sport multiracial, many South Africans are now saying, "Yes, we want stick but we should also occasionally like a little bit of carrot when we do what is right"? Is it not time that we occasionally saw some carrot?

Mr. Macfarlane: I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps these issues will be discussed at some future date. I return to the decision in Melbourne in September 1981 to uphold the principles of the declaration.

Foreign Countries (Sporting Links)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility his Department has for promoting sporting links with foreign countries; and what proportion of his Department's efforts are devoted to South American countries.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am keen to foster good international sporting relations and am always willing to give advice and assistance where appropriate. I cannot estimate the proportion of my Department's efforts devoted to South American countries.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister think that the invitation to the England football team to visit Rio de Janeiro was withdrawn?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave a short while ago.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend tell me—there is nothing personal in this—why a supremely non-interventionist Government should interfere in sporting matters?

Mr. Macfarlane: I was not aware that we had intervened in sporting matters. The premise that my hon. Friend advances is entirely incorrect.

Refuse Collection (Privatisation)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now privatised refuse collection; and what information he has as to the approximate savings or additional expenditure involved as a result.

Mr. King: Fourteen authorities have made arrangements that will save about £29 million in total over the contract periods involved. A considerable number of others are reassessing the ways in which their services are provided, to ensure that efficiency and economy are achieved.

Mr. Greenway: Have not privately run schemes served as a catalyst for the great improvement in refuse collection in both the public and private sectors, as well as saving ratepayers the enormous sums of money that my right hon. Friend has outlined? Is that not desirable and is it not also true that these are highly efficient schemes?

Mr. King: In all services that are provided by public bodies, whether central or local government, there is a requirement and a duty on all concerned to ensure that the services that are needed are provided in the most efficient way. It is clear that, in many cases, going out to tender for refuse collection has saved substantial sums of money for ratepayers.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative-controlled Wandsworth council has privatised both refuse collection and street cleaning, since when the Members of Parliament for Wandsworth have been inundated with complaints about dirty streets in the borough? Is he further aware that anyone who goes from Lambeth to Wandsworth knows when he reaches the borough boundary, because he can see the dirt on the streets?

Mr. King: I note that the services will now be provided at a saving of some £7·5 million, over the contract period, to the ratepayers of Wandsworth. I know that there are some attempts to spread propaganda about inadequacies of the service. However, I know that there were a substantial number of complaints about the service beforehand. Many people have told me that the service has improved substantially.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the enormous savings that can be made in this way are brought to the notice not only of local councils in England and Wales but to the electors of those councils before the forthcoming elections?

Mr. King: At the next local council elections the Conservative council in Birmingham, for example, will be offering a rate reduction of 12·5 per cent. That has been brought about partly by the workmen that it employs, who have demonstrated that they can save £3·5 million a year when refuse collection is put out to competition. That saving is being transmitted direct to the ratepayers.

Mr. Canavan: Garbage.

Mr. Graham: Although I acknowledge that the public versus private contractor argument is of great concern and interest, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that some private contracts have been terminated because of a failure to meet promises about services? Will the Secretary of State monitor that aspect of the issue and especially bear in mind the public interest when councils will have got rid of equipment and, therefore, be at the mercy of private contractors?

Mr. King: That is a most interesting question. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman favours putting services out to tender. I hope that he does. There can be no justification for not assessing whether services are being provided in the most efficient way. The quality of the service and the need to provide it at a proper standard is an important ingredient in a contract.

Civil Defence

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that statutory expenditure on emergency planning and on the raising and training of civil defence volunteers by county councils and the Greater London council as required under the proposed new civil defence regulations shall not be included in any penalty calculations in respect of overspending by counties and the Greater London council.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Local authorities' expenditure for comparison with their expenditure targets is calculated net of specific grants. I have had no representations which suggest that authorities' civil defence expenditure, net of specific grant, will lead to overspending.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the primary duty of local authorities should be to ensure that they have sufficient resources to deal with emergencies, including civil defence emergencies? Therefore, should we not encourage local authorities in every way to use this money?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is an important matter, in which the local communities would wish local authorities to be involved. He will realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the way in which local authorities discharge their duties in this respect.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that there is no conceivable way in which local authorities could cope with the emergency that would arise from a nuclear war? Indeed, the dying would envy the dead after a nuclear war. Is it not true that, because local authorities are exercising their democratic right to opt out of the deployment of nuclear weapons, the Government are now trying to force local government employees to accept the Government's diktat?

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been consulting local authority associations about the

way in which they should discharge their commitment to ensure that their civil defence obligations are fully met. That must be an objective of local authorities, as, I trust, it is of all hon. Members.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the country's population will benefit from the need to have an adequate civil defence provision? Will he do his best to correct some local authorities' reluctance to incur the 25 per cent. expenditure that is left to be borne by the rates?

Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important that local authorities should be encouraged to carry out such tasks. However, I must remind the House that substantial grants are available to ease the discharge of their duties.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Minister remind hon. Members how many lives were saved during the second world war by our civil defence services?

Mr. Shaw: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question, and he is right to remind us how important that was.

Local Authority Capital Expenditure

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held with local authority associations about capital spending in 1983–84; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. King: After consulting the local authority associations I announced on 15 March, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright), that during 1983–84 authorities are free to use up to 100 per cent. of accumulated non-housing receipts. I am also issuing additional allocations to some authorities facing particular problems in the coming year. This should enable local government to proceed with its capital spending plans in 1983–84.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are no obstacles to local authorities spending in full their capital allocations and planning with confidence for the year ahead?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know that we have paid special attention to this matter, because we accept that part of the reason for the underspend in the current year has been the problem of the annual system of cash control. We are trying to tackle that problem and to help local authorities.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why do not the Government increase their capital spending on problems relating to coastal pollution? Has the Secretary of State seen the "golden list" produced by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League, which deals with Britain's filthy beaches? Will he read that report and make a statement to the House about the measures that he intends to introduce and the additional money that he will bring before Parliament to deal with the problems outlined in that report?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the responsibilities of health authorities, not local authorities, which are the subject of this question. We are trying to tackle this problem.

Council House Sales

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total number of tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations who have become owner-occupiers under the right-to-buy provisions since the Government came to office.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council house sales have been completed since May 1979.

Mr. Stanley: Since the Government were elected, the number of publicly rented dwellings that are now owner-occupied is approximately 500,000. About 300,000 of these sales have been through the right to buy rather than through voluntary arrangements.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the encouraging figures that he has just announced demonstrate the real transfer of wealth from the state to working people? Does he agree that perhaps two out of every three tenants who have so far exercised their right to buy are paying £20 a month more on their mortgage than they might because of the dramatic reduction in inflation and the low interest rates charged by building societies? Should they not be encouraged to transfer their mortgages to the building societies?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this is the most important redistribution of wealth in favour of ordinary working people that has been carried out by any Government. I agree that it is part of our policy to encourage local authorities to exercise their powers voluntarily to transfer mortgages to building societies and to give their tenants the benefit of any lower rates.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that throughout London the Government's wrecking policies have produced an ever more acute shortage of homes to rent?

Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have had one of the largest upsurges in private house building, and there is also a substantial rise in public sector house building in London. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the number of vacant dwellings, he will find that the biggest concentration regionally is in London, where many Labour-controlled authorities have empty dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the great problems in giving this right to tenants has been the disgraceful delay by many Labour-controlled councils in selling those houses? Will he confirm that one of the worst offenders has been Wolverhampton district council and that he is continuing to put all proper pressure upon that council to speed up the process of selling to tenants?

Mr. Stanley: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There has been considerable delay by Wolverhampton district council, Darlington district council and other Labour-controlled authorities, where progress should have been greater. The progress in Wolverhampton has not been satisfactory and is still being closely scrutinised by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Given the Government's sales policy and their abysmal record on new building, how many fewer council houses are there in Britain today than when the Government came to office?

Mr. Stanley: There are more council houses. All that has happened is that many council tenants who would have remained so have the benefit of home ownership, thanks to this Government's policies.

Inner Cities (Ethnic Minorities)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the ethnic minorities to discuss inner city problems; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): My right hon. Friend has had no such meetings recently, but, in accordance with my special responsibility for these matters within the Department of the Environment, I regularly meet representatives of ethnic minority groups to discuss subjects for which the Department is responsible, including inner city problems.

Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has been poured by his Department into inner city areas is a waste of money, as it was in the United States of America? Would not those resources be better utilised by transferring them to the Home Office for the better protection and policing of Greater London, so that black and white alike can be better protected?

Sir George Young: I do not agree with that for one moment. There has been a welcome improvement in the atmosphere in our inner cities since the publication of the Scarman report and following the activities of several Government Departments, including the Home Office and mine, in building up a better dialogue in our inner cities and in backing a range of worthwhile projects with both public and private money. I cannot agree that a transfer of funds from the urban programme to the Home Office would tackle some of the deep social and economic problems that remain in our inner cities.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the mischief-making of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) does nothing for race relations, and that the money spent in this direction and any money that can be spent in improving racial harmony is money well spent, for the benefit of the entire community?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) is entitled to his views on this matter.

Mr. Flannery: He is not.

Sir George Young: Any funds invested in the inner cities by my Department are scrutinised carefully. We try to back worthwhile projects that will reach the heart of the problems, but some local authorities tend to waste ratepayers' money on propaganda exercises that often raise the temperature rather than lower it.

Mr. John Grant: Does the Minister recognise that, while I accept what he said about the unwelcome propaganda exercises, we welcome his efforts in respect of the ethnic minorities in inner cities? We hope that they will be increased and that he will resist the obnoxious and racist comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

Sir George Young: On Monday I approved next year's partnership programme for Islington, which contains


several new projects put forward by ethnic groups. I am confident that they will provide valuable services to the community.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend realise that in the inner cities one success story of his Department has been the general improvement in the housing action areas, which applies to all colours and creeds and is the way in which housing should be approached?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right, but the question referred to ethnic minorities, which is why I couched my reply in those terms.

Rates

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received supporting the domestic rating system.

Mr. King: Of the 1,125 responses to the Green Paper, 493 were broadly in favour of retaining domestic rates in some form.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention to reform, or better still to abolish, the domestic rating system? Is he aware that there is no acceptable alternative to reform or abolition?

Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is under close consideration. I can go no further than the answers that I have already given to the House on this matter.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: What does the Minister mean by "close consideration"? Does he not realise that this commitment was given in 1974 and continued in 1979? After four years of a Conservative Government we have seen no proposal to fulfil that commitment.

Mr. King: I mean exactly what I said.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain expect the Government to take action on reforming the domestic rating system? If unanimity cannot be found on any of the options outlined in the Green Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that an interim measure is required very soon?

Mr. King: I am well aware of the interest and expectation over this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be bringing forward proposals on this matter.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Why does not the Secretary of State implement the Layfield report recommendations published in 1976, which would overcome all the problems and get on with the job of putting local income tax in place of rates?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know always tries to be helpful in these matters.

Home Improvement Grants

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the extension of grants for rewiring older property.

Sir George Young: I have recently received representations from hon. Members, local authorities and members of the public about the extension of home improvement grants for rewiring older property.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing a separate grant for rewiring, so that many people, particularly the elderly, can live in comfort and safety?

Sir George Young: Where an improved electrical installation is required to meet the approved standard, such work is eligible on its own for an improvement grant at the local authority's discretion. In other circumstances, rewiring may be grant-aided as a repair associated with improvement works with either an improvement or intermediate grant. We have no plans at the moment to change this arrangement.

Water Meters

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the provision of meters to private householders by water authorities.

Mr. Giles Shaw: This is primarily a matter for the water authorities, but the Government have supported their initiatives to make optional metering available to all their consumers.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider advising water authorities to investigate any demands for meters by householders with rateable values under £350 per annum, who could not possibly benefit thereby?

Mr. Shaw: Yes, I agree. In discussions as to whether a meter is appropriate, the rateable value and the benefits from the meter should be estimated.

Multi-storey Flats

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on behalf of tenants living in damp and cold multi-storey flats; and if he will assist councils to renovate such properties.

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend has received various representations from time to time on behalf of tenants in dwellings with cold and dampness problems, although these have not been limited to multi-storey properties.
It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to tackling these problems within the total available to them for housing investment. In making allocations account is taken of any special local need. Homes insulation grants are available for local authority tenants who apply for them.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister accept that there are now 4·2 million families living in homes that are unfit or lack a bath, hot water and an inside lavatory, or which need major repairs costing over £2,500? As the cost of these repairs and renovations will run into billions of pounds, which is far beyond local authorities' means, will he consider making an additional grant for this purpose, which would also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of unemployed building workers?

Sir George Young: It was not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to public or private sector dwellings. As my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, we have increased by 15 per cent. the resources available to local authorities next year for public sector dwellings. Unfortunately, they have not spent all the available


resources this year. It is therefore difficult for the hon. Gentleman to sustain the argument that it is a shortage of resources that is holding up such matters.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that one of the major causes of condensation and dampness in council property is that a great many council tenants cannot any longer afford to have adequate heating in their homes? When will the Government tackle that problem?

Sir George Young: The Building Research Establishment is now researching the causes and mehods of relieving dampness. It is carrying out some practical field trials to assess the effectiveness in practice and the cost of improved heating, thermal insulation, ventilation and the role of dehumidifiers. Resources are available in particular cases to help certain families with heating costs.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the worst problems are found in the prefabricated multi-storey flats of the past? Does he agree that the race by Governments to provide accommodation resulted in incredibly had architectural design and lack of insulation and heating facilities? There must be a long programme of renovation. It cannot be achieved in the short term.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The country is paying a heavy penalty for decisions that were made a decade or two ago about the design of some buildings. We have tried to change the subsidy system so that capitalised repairs to tackle such problems are eligible for subsidy.

Mr. Freeson: Returning to the question of encouraging better heating for elderly people in these badly insulated homes, will the Minister look at the Homes Insulation Act 1978 again and use the powers that the Act gives his Department to introduce a further scheme beyond the loft insulation scheme?

Sir George Young: We have this matter under review. Our present view is that resources should be concentrated on loft insulation, where the most effective savings in heat loss can be made. We are looking at possible means of extensions, such as double glazing and other methods.

Water Supply and Sewage Disposal

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce proposals to amend the system of charging for water supply and sewage disposal.

Mr. King: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the constipated elderly widow in my constituency—whose other disabilities prevent her from having a regular bath—that life is somewhat unfair, as the six adults who live next door, who are fitness and health fanatics, use rather more water and generate rather more sewage than she does, but are charged the same water rates? Will he say when the Government intend to do something about this? If not now, will something be brought in before the general election?

Mr. King: We have taken a close interest in this matter, as my hon. Friend knows. From 1 April every water supply authority, whether a water company or authority, will offer optional domestic metering. The substantial number of new meters that have been installed will, I hope, he further expanded. People such as my hon.

Friend's constituent will be much better placed if they consider that option, which could show significant savings.

Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many elderly people who find it extremely difficult to pay their water rates, which have increased out of all proportion during the past three years? Will he consider introducing rebates for water rates?

Mr. King: No, I do not believe that that would be the appropriate way to tackle this matter.

Mr. Ashton: Why not?

Mr. King: For the same reasons as the previous Government reached the same conclusions. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) says that water rates have increased out of all proportion, I know that his constituents in the Southern water authority area will be pleased to know that this year's increase will be 4·6 per cent.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister recall that at the 1979 election the Conservatives were going to change many things and said that because a previous Government did not carry out something that did not bind them to retain an existing system? The Conservatives were going to change the rating system. Surely it is only fair that rebates should be available for water rates. Is not the Government's vicious indifference towards this matter shown by the fact that they are proposing to replace existing water authorities with nominees from the Department of the Environment who will not consider proper charging if they are instructed not to do so by his Department?

Mr. King: Those are two different issues. As far as I know, as a point of principle, the hon. Gentleman never raised the subject of the rebate when his party was in power —[HON. MEMBERS: "He did".] If he did, he was not successful. The issue is whether such a rebate is more a matter for the normal DHSS machinery than something provided through the water authority. While rebates are important, so is the general level of water charges. Continuing pressure to try to achieve greater economy and efficiency in water authorities is resulting directly in lower water increases this year.

Industrialised House Building Systems

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any further submissions made to him for financial assistance from local authorities, relating to the problems they are now encountering concerning the defects appearing in housing accommodation built by industrialised and semi-industrialised systems.

Mr. Stanley: Since the answer that the hon. Member received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 May last year, I have received submissions for financial assistance from a number of individual authorities, including the members of the Yorkshire development group, and also from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

Mr. Dean: Is the Minister aware that the answers given today on the same subject mean that there will be little or no increased help to local authorities, other than by giving


them permission to raise their rates further to carry the burden of these repairs? When will he extend the help that he has given to people who bought Airey houses from local authorities to people who have bought other industrialised system houses from local authorities, and to local authorities that are dealing with industrial houses on their tenants' behalf?

Mr. Stanley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman says that no additional assistance is available. He must

know that Leeds has taken advantage of our invitation to apply for additional allocations this year. It has received an additional allocation of up to £9 million for capitalised repairs. It has certainly taken advantage of our offer.
I am considering representations by the AMA and the other local authority associations on the HIP allocation method for the next financial year, 1984–85. I want to consider whether any special arrangement should be made in the methodology to deal with the problems of defective housing.

Northern Ireland (Economic Initiative)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the Government's new economic initiative for Northern Ireland.
The House will need no reminding of the unique combination of severe economic and social problems in Northern Ireland. In recognition of those exceptional circumstances, the Government have decided to introduce several new measures to stimulate industrial growth and to assist viable industrial employment in Northern Ireland.
First and foremost, the Government have decided to introduce a new grant that will reimburse new and expanding industries up to 80 per cent. of the corporation tax paid on profits generated by approved projects. That grant will form part of the selective financial assistance packages administered by the industrial development board and by the local enterprise development unit.
A measure of that sort has been widely urged upon us by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, by the Northern Ireland assembly—which yesterday endorsed a constructive report on industrial incentives—by the industrial development board and by many others. It will be a major new attraction to potential investors.
Secondly, and again in recognition of Northern Ireland's unique economic problems, the existing 75 per cent. derating of industrial premises will be increased to a full 100 per cent. That will both help new investors and bring valuable immediate relief to existing enterprises. Parliament will shortly be asked to approve an order giving effect to that derating from the beginning of the next financial year.
Thirdly, an energy conservation scheme will be introduced to encourage industry to increase efficiency and competitiveness. Grants at the rate of 30 per cent. will be offered on a selective basis towards the cost of approved energy conservation projects.
Finally, the Government intend to introduce two further schemes designed to improve competitive strength and efficiency. There will be a management incentives scheme, which will provide grant aid in appropriate cases to companies to help them recruit good-quality management, and an advisory service to industry will be established to help Northern Ireland companies to improve their production methods and processes.
Those measures reflect the advice the Government have received, especially from the industrial development board. I am confident that they will assist the board in its vital task of helping to conserve and create employment. A vital contribution is also being made by the local enterprise development unit, whose new plan for the creation and development of small businesses I approved last year.
Those specific Northern Ireland measures will reinforce the Government's more general steps to assist industry and the economy. Reducing interest rates and the successive reductions in national insurance surcharge will have as valuable an impact in Northern Ireland as in the remainder of the country.
During the last few years the Government have accorded first priority to programmes designed to assist industry in Northern Ireland. As we have shown in these allocations, and further demonstrated with the measures

announced today, the Government will play their part in supporting and promoting the economy of the Province. But a heavy responsibility lies on the people themselves, on their industrial, commercial and labour leaders, and on their public representatives, to bring home just how exaggerated and distorted is the impression which so many outsiders have of the Province. We look to them to demonstrate to the industrialists of the world that Northern Ireland is worthy of their confidence and their investment.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland stands at almost 21 per cent.? Therefore, the initiatives—albeit minor—are obviously welcome. Indeed, they are long overdue. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the one thing of which I could never accuse the Government is shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted? The Government burned down the stable many months ago in Northern Ireland.
Is not the first half of the last paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement an insult to the people of Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government Monetarist policies are mainly to blame—not the people of Northern Ireland? The Opposition took action when unemployment stood at 10 per cent. in Northern Ireland, which I found highly unacceptable. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that time there were more people employed in Northern Ireland than ever before?
Have not the Opposition been calling for urgent action on the economy for many months—as have the trade unions in Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Northern Ireland has become a country of ghost towns? In Carrickfergus and Strabane unemployment stands at more than 50 per cent. Are not those towns tragic examples?
The Opposition hope that the measures announced will do something to arrest the decline of the economy of Northern Ireland and bring hope to a population afflicted by the twin evils of unemployment and poverty. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much more will be required if the economy is ever to recover fully?
In the short term, could not a great deal more be done to boost the construction industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about energy conservation? Grants of 30 per cent. will be offered on a selective basis to approved energy conservation projects. How does he envisage an expanding coal market in Northern Ireland, and how will that benefit from the proposed measures?
Will not those who benefit most from the measures be not the people of Northern Ireland—or of Ireland as a whole—but the entrepreneurs who, as I have found, have played the North against the South in the search for higher grants and greater incentives? Do not the Government now realise that the competition between the two halves of Ireland for inward investment benefits neither? A job created in the South is a job opportunity lost in the North, and vice versa. Do the Government agree that economic co-operation between the North and the South is common sense?
Would not a joint working party established by the Northern Ireland industrial development board and the Republic's industrial development agency help to ensure that a job created in Ireland was a job for Ireland? I urge the Government to follow those steps and examine the possibilities for greater co-operation with Dublin. Do the


Government appreciate that never were jobs more vital to any part of this country or Ireland than they are in Northern Ireland—not only for the jobs themselves, but for the political atmosphere?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is 13 per cent. unemployment in my area? I thought that I would never see that day in my lifetime again. However, it must be viewed in the Northern Ireland context of towns with more than 50 per cent. unemployed. I cannot jib at these extras for Northern Ireland, but I wish that four years ago the Government had carried on the policies of the Labour Administration. If they had, Carrickfergus and Strabane would not have found themselves in the mess that they are in today.

Mr. Prior: I thought that that was rather grudging support from the right hon. Gentleman. Had we continued with the Labour policies, Carrickfergus would have suffered exactly the same problems. The House may wish to be reminded that the percentage of unemployed doubled while the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for Northern Ireland, and was increasing at the end of his period of office.
Simply pouring money into rather dubious projects will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the energy conservation projects. I am placing fuller details of those schemes in the Library. They are designed to help industry to conserve energy in an area in which energy costs are at the top of the scale compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am all in favour of economic co-operation with the South, but one of the purposes of the package is to make it clear to industrialists in Great Britain that there are ample opportunities and advantages in investing in the North of Ireland as opposed to the South, where there has been greater investment from Great Britain in the past few years.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With reference to the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the injudicious remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no economic initiative will be of lasting value in Northern Ireland unless the Government desist from the series of political initiatives that have occupied the lifetime of this Parliament, which are in contravention of the election undertakings of the Conservative party, and of which the consequence is all too clearly seen by the people in Northern Ireland to be the opposite of that which they intended?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has done well to avoid the trap of a variation in tax levels between one part of the United Kingdom and another and to seek to achieve his purpose by means of a grant rather than by variation in tax? Furthermore, is he aware that the total industrial derating will assuage the grievance that was felt by firms which were on the boundary of the new enterprise zone but not within it?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but in relation to the first part of his question I urge him, as a man who could have considerable influence in Northern Ireland, to use his influence more constructively than he has done in recent

years. The right hon. Gentleman's views are not on the whole supported by the people of Northern Ireland and his continued expression of them does no good either to Northern Ireland or to his reputation.

Mr. John Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) were 50 per cent. De Lorean and 50 per cent. Mitterrand, and that that mixture is a cocktail for disaster? Would my right hon. Friend also accept that the measures that he has outlined today should be successful, if the security situation improves?

Mr. Prior: Clearly, the political and security situation has been one very important reason for the lack of industrial inward investment over the past few years, but I believe that there are, and have been, great advantages in inward investment in Northern Ireland, particularly in view of the very good industrial relations there and the excellent productivity of Northern Ireland workers. I therefore hope that these measures will have a major impact.

Mr. Stephen Ross: This is a generous package which is worthy of a positive response. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's call to local leaders in industry and politics in Northern Ireland to take the initiative. It would be a good idea to give greater emphasis to the creation of worker co-operatives in the areas of highest unemployment, such as those referred to by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). What is the likely response, and what is the estimated cost of the measures?

Mr. Prior: The estimated cost of the two measures —the energy conservation scheme and the 100 per cent. industrial derating—is about £9 million to £10 million. It is impossible to say what the cost of the corporation tax relief grant will be, but it will certainly not cost very much in the early years and it is specifically related to increased employment. A company that wished to take advantage of it would have to show not only that it was increasing employment but that it was engaged in an arm's-length operation, away from any of its other operations in Great Britain or other parts of the world.
We would support the creation of local co-operatives, and they could be supported through the local enterprise development unit. I have no political hangups about giving support to co-operatives, if they come forward.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Secretary of State said that he was all for economic cooperation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If I cannot read my notes of the statement, how can I make my points to the Secretary of State? Does the Secretary of State agree that the incentives for new projects and the advisory service to industry could only benefit from co-operation with the Dublin Government, who have had such demonstrable success in respect of the former and far more success than we have had in this country? Has the right hon. Gentleman also assessed the employment impact of his measures in the areas of highest unemployment?

Mr. Prior: No, it is impossible to assess the employment contribution that the measures will make, but it will be considerable. I accept the point about competition between North and South. One of the reasons why we have introduced the measures is to bring company


taxation far more into line with what is on offer for inward investment in the Republic of Ireland without damaging the integrity of the United Kingdom tax system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the constructive package announced by my right hon. Friend, especially the energy assistance and the industrial derating. Will he assure the House that never again will large sums of taxpayers' money be given to companies, especially those with proprietors from overseas, without adequate security for the taxpayer? In that connection, does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) were ill judged, bearing in mind that the British taxpayer lost a huge amount of money as a result of the Labour Government jumping into bed with a man who could not be trusted and should never have been trusted?

Mr. Prior: I generally find the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) well judged, but I thought that they were ill judged today. One of the advantages of the corporation tax relief grant is that a company must be making profits before it can take advantage of it. That is entirely in tune with our philosophy and may avoid some of the problems experienced in past years through supporting companies of rather dubious profitability. I hope that a combination of the new industrial development board and the work done by the assembly will ensure that money spent in Northern Ireland is spent to good effect.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: The Secretary of State referred to great opportunities being created for inward investment by the private sector. Is he aware that there are great opportunities for inward investment by the Government? Does he agree that the biggest single economic generator is the construction industry and that the way to get things moving in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is through a massive injection of investment into the construction industry, beginning with a major housing programme to include construction of new houses and improvement and rehabilitation of older houses? What steps are proposed to achieve that?

Mr. Prior: I do not know when the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) was last in Northern Ireland. There is a massive housing campaign now with about £400 million for new and improved housing. That is far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom, so we are giving a great deal of help to the construction industry in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, simply pouring in more and more Government money will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It already receives a far higher proportion of aid—between £1,000 million and £1,200 million—than any part of the United Kingdom. The proportion of gross domestic product supplied, as it were, by the Government is far greater than elsewhere. Northern Ireland now requires the development of good, sound manufacturing investment which can support a highly skilled work force and is privately oriented and not dependent on Government support.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Although one welcomes the proposals, will the Secretary of State

explain why they were not introduced at least two years ago? How do the proposals compare with the equivalent incentives provided in the Republic?

Mr. Prior: It is always possible to argue that these measures should have been introduced in the past but the fact is that they are being introduced now. I believe that they will be generally welcomed. They follow very much the advice that has been given to us by the new industrial development board which has been set up for only about six months. These measures, taken with the other measures which are available to assist industry in Northern Ireland, now make Northern Ireland the most attractive place for investment in the whole community and possibly in the whole of the Western world.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the undoubted influence that he now has in the Treasury? I take it that a certain amount of dampness is creeping in there at this late stage. Having expressed pleasure for what has been done for Northern Ireland, may I ask him to use his influence on behalf of many places on the mainland where we could do with some derating of industry because industry has been caned by some of the high rates on this side of the water?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said but even he will accept that, great though the demands may be on this side of the water, the problems of Northern Ireland are unique and have to be treated in a unique manner.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the right hon. Gentleman will know that, with regard to profits, accountants are very good at producing anything one wants. What action will be taken to ensure that the initiative is properly monitored and that we do not have more De Loreals? Will the House check it from day to day? Will the Government require Northern Ireland Members to check it or will they leave it to people in the Northern Ireland Office who appear not to do their job properly and allow such things to go on?

Mr. Prior: It is De Lorean, not L'Oreal, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is a cosmetics firm.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: So was De Lorean —cosmetic.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is on to a perfectly serious and important point. It is important that checking should be adequate to ensure that there is no room for abuse. We shall have to draw up tight arrangements. They must not be so tight as to put people off using them, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a serious point. I have already consulted the Inland Revenue, and we will be setting up a special monitoring organisation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow questions until 4 pm, when I shall call Front Bench spokesmen, but whether everyone is called will depend on the length of questions.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When there are such difficulties and when such efforts are being made by my right hon. Friend, the IDB and private enterprise,


might one not expect the British Broadcasting Corporation to have shown itself, if not helpful, at least objective in its "Panorama" programme insultingly called "Britain's Wasteland"? Has my right hon. Friend had any conversation with the governors of the BBC about the programme, which was so unbalanced and distorted and dwelt so much on the negative and not on the positive?

Mr. Prior: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. I am taking an early opportunity to talk to the BBC about it.

Mr. Robert Parry: what discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and when does he expect next to meet the committee? Does he not agree that any economic proposals must be discussed with and supported by the committee? As the Member responsible for the Transport and General Workers Union membership in Northern Ireland, I fully support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) concerning a massive programme of reconstruction in the building industry.

Mr. Prior: I shall be seeing the committee early next week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: But would not the Secretary of State accept that the Government's initiative amounts to intervening in the market place and that market forces are not providing jobs in Northern Ireland? Perhaps he could draw it to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment that market forces are not working in the rest of the United Kingdom either.
Will he spell out what type of projects will receive the 80 per cent. corporation tax allowance? Will they include those projects which already receive 100 per cent. corporation tax allowance plus grant aid? What sort of grant aid is to be given to recruit managers? Should this not be carefully scrutinised? The Opposition wish to see jobs created everywhere, but we do not wish to see money given needlessly. Would not Mr. De Lorean have qualified for grant aid to recruit managers?

Mr. Prior: Mr. De Lorean certainly would not have qualified for aid for making profits. To that extent, this corporation tax relief grant is specially designed to encourage profitable companies, and not the reverse. As for the aid for managers, it has proved difficult in a Northern Ireland context to attract managers of the right quality. We believe that we can help individual companies, as part of a package of aid, to subsidise certain managerial posts to attract them to Northern Ireland. Anything that we can do to make Northern Ireland more attractive will be of aid to industry there.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment anywhere is a recipe for disaster? As the Government can govern neither their own country nor Northern Ireland, is he prepared to propose to the Northern Ireland people that they take over the autonomous government of their own country, or to ask all of the people of Ireland whether they are prepared to take over their own country and run the economy of Ireland as one country?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In what sense are the "severe economic and social problems", which the right hon. Gentleman described as being of an exceptional nature, any worse than those in other parts of the United Kingdom such as the northern region, where unemployment is higher?

Mr. Prior: There may be pockets of unemployment in Great Britain which are as high as the average in Northern Ireland, but there are pockets in Northern Ireland which are considerably higher than anywhere else. They are also accompanied by a degree of violence, which, thank heavens, is not present in Great Britain. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions in Northern Ireland which should make the House sympathetic to the special treatment that we are seeking to accord.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How has this post-Livingstone initiative managed to get past the Milton Friedman litmus test that is operated by the Government? If there is sufficient money available, will the Government bear it in mind that it would be a good idea to get hold of that bloke MacGregor and send him across to Northern Ireland to run the scheme?

Mr. Prior: On the latter point, I can only say that I was extremely grateful to Mr. MacGregor for placing an order with Harland and Wolff for a large ship for the British Steel Corporation. I should like very much for him to come back to Northern Ireland to place a few more orders. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not know a good man when he sees one, I do.

Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that I said that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland under the Labour Government was unacceptable? At the same time, if the Secretary of State has not been advised, he should be advised that there were more people in Northern Ireland at work during that period than ever before. It was found that with the hope of the Government trying to do something to provide jobs, more people were registering for work than ever before. I am sometimes amazed by the stance of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who says one thing in this House but whose actions back in his constituency are exactly the opposite. I never found that he complained about public money going into his constituency to create jobs for his people. If the Opposition can be pilloried for anything, it is that they paid money for people to work and not for people to languish in the dole queue and for unemployment benefits. Will the Secretary of State answer the main question? What type of jobs and how many jobs will the package attract to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I cannot answer that question because I simply do not know the answer. The result will depend entirely on inward investment. I do not know what attitude others will take to inward investment but I suspect that the absence of local taxes and the equivalent of 10 per cent. corporation tax for companies making a profit will be pretty attractive to incoming investment. To that extent, I believe that the scheme will have a marked effect on unemployment levels. Much will depend on the attitude of employers, inward investors and the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I am satisfied that the people of Northern Ireland deserve this break and I think that they will take full advantage of it.

Nicaragua

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the reference to the United Nations Security Council by the Government of Nicaragua of the threat to the security of that country and to peace in central America posed by armed insurgents based in Honduras.
The matter is specific and important because warnings have been issued by the Government of Nicaragua over the past few days that war with Honduras may be imminent as a result of the penetration of Nicaragua by many hundreds of heavily armed counter-revolutionaries, many of whom appear to be former Somoza national guardsmen based in Honduras and armed and trained, so it is alleged, by the United States and Honduras.
Some confirmation of the position has been provided by the counter-revolutionary Nicaraguan Democratic Front, which has claimed that a number of towns in the Matagalpa region have fallen to it, although these claims are dismissed by the Nicaraguan Government. The counter-revolutionaries have called for the deposing of the Nicaraguan Government and recognition by "friendly Governments".
The matter is urgent because, unless defused, the situation could escalate to war between Honduras and Nicaragua and could well engulf large parts of central America. It is urgent, moreover, because, since the Nicaraguan Government have referred the matter to the United Nations Security Council, Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the Security Council, will have to make significant decisions, either in support of or in opposition to the case presented by Nicaragua. This will have to be done within a matter of days.
Having regard to the heavily prejudiced stance already taken by the Government against Nicaragua, it is vital that

the House be given the opportunity to hear from the Government so as to determine whether they are making an independent judgment of these matters or are prepared to act as a timid acolyte of the United States Secondly, it is vital that the House should express its point of view on a matter of such moment and, above all, well in advance of the Security Council's debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the reference to the United Nations Security Council by the Government of Nicaragua of the threat to the security of that country and to peace in central America posed by armed insurgents based in Honduras.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 1 am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's representations but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS (PROHIBITION AT ELECTION TIMES)

Mr. Doug Hoyle, supported by Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Ron Brown presented a Bill to prohibit the holding of and publication of the results of opinion polls about voting intentions at times prior to general elections and by-elections for the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Insolvency (Special Arrangements)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency.
We are all painfully aware of the world recession. Businesses have weathered some difficult trading conditions and a number of them have perished. We may disagree about what the Government can do about a recession or unemployment, but I think that every hon. Member will agree that a Government have a part to play in creating the economic environment to encourage sound businesses and the maintenance of jobs where they can.
There is no doubt that a number of businesses are foundering and have foundered under our insolvency laws and procedures. English insolvency law is out of date and our procedures are unnecessarily out of date, cumbersome and bureaucratic. The creditors' rules are unfair. Once a company becomes ensnared in court proceedings, like a fly in a spider's web it can never get out, even if the business is fundamentally sound. The same applies to bankruptcies of individuals. I believe that the law needs tightening to deal with rogues.
There is a need, which the previous Labour Government recognised and which I believe the present Government recognise, for a new, comprehensive insolvency system. A committee under Sir Kenneth Cork was appointed in 1977 to examine just that. It produced part 1 of its report in April 1981 and part 2 in February 1982. The report contains a detailed system to deal with and reform the insolvency law. It is the product of the best working experience. It is innovative, well argued, radical and of immense authority. The report has been welcomed on both sides of the House.
In seeking leave for the Bill to be introduced, I have the support of hon. Members from both sides of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who cannot be present today, welcomes the report. However, the Government have taken no action on

it. Meanwhile, out-of-date and cumbersome legal procedures trundle on and individuals and companies whose financial position is facing short-term difficulties but which could survive are being brought down by out-of-date procedures and unfair rules. Jobs are being lost unnecessarily.
I should like to see the Cork report enacted as a whole but I believe that Department officials are dragging their feet. They should start work now. Legislative time will be available more or less however we compute the date of the next general election. I believe that any new Government would want to continue any unfinished work commenced by this Government. If that cannot happen, and if to do that would block the usual channels, there are some urgent matters that can be taken from the report and dealt with now.
I have the support of Members on both sides of the House for the Bill, in which I seek to do three things. First, the Bill requires registration by receivers and liquidators of the cause of the failure. Secondly, it seeks to tackle the roguery that is involved in consecutive and collusive insolvencies and to tighten up the rules to deal with delinquent directors. Thirdly, it seeks to provide a system of voluntary arrangements to enable debtors to agree arrangements with creditors under which the business can continue.
This is not an esoteric matter that concerns only lawyers. The present insolvency rules are unfair and are costing jobs. The matter concerns us all and is urgent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Tim Smith, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. David Watkins and Mr. Kenneth Weetch.

INSOLVENCY (SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Nicholas Baker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Housing and Building Control Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ordered,
That the report [7 March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Report considered accordingly

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That on the allotted day which under the Order [16 February] is to be given to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading those proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion as follows:—

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses and amendments to Clause 1
5.30 pm


Amendments to Clauses 2 to 11
8 pm


Amendments to Clauses 12 to 23
10 pm


Remaining proceedings on Consideration
11 pm


Third Reading
1 am

Orders of the Day — Housing and Building Control Bill

Allotted Day

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

NOTICES

`After subsection (1) of section 22 of the 1980 Act (notices) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Where the form of and the particulars, to be contained in a notice under this Chapter are so prescribed, a tenant who proposes to claim or has claimed to exercise the right to buy may request the landlord to supply him with a form for use in giving such a notice, and the landlord shall do so within seven days of the request.".'.—[Mr. Stanley.] Brought up, and read the First time

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause provides that a landlord must supply any form which has been statutorily prescribed for tenants' use in connection with their right-to-buy within seven days of receiving a request from a tenant for such a form. We are concerned in particular that landlords should be under an obligation to supply the initial right to buy claim form, the RTB1. No express provision was included in the Housing Act 1980 to require landlords to meet requests from their tenants for these forms.
We assumed, not unreasonably I think, that no local authority would be so irresponsible or so petty as to refuse its own tenants a statutorily prescribed form under legislation passed by Parliament. Unhappily, we overestimated the sense of public responsibility of two Labour-controlled authorities, the city council of Leeds and the council at Thamesdown, both of which have consistently refused to provide their tenants with the right-to-buy application forms, referring all requests to the Department. The Department has so far issued over 8,000 forms to Leeds tenants and over 16,000 to tenants in Thamesdown. I can see no justification whatsoever for the stance that those two authorities have adopted. Their refusal to supply the statutory forms has simply served to cause delay, frustration and inconvenience to individual tenants who want to exercise their statutory rights.
The new clause will place landlords under a clear legal obligation to supply their tenants with forms prescribed for their use in exercising the right to buy. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the new clause should never have been necessary. If councils such as Leeds and Thamesdown wish to conduct themselves in an obstructive and petty-minded way by refusing to hand out statutorily prescribed forms, we have no alternative but to bring forward a new clause to prevent tenants from being obstructed in obtaining their legal rights.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister said that the new clause should never have been necessary. It would not have been necessary if the Government had not


insisted throughout their right-to-buy legislation that they knew better than local authorities what was appropriate with regard to council house sales in any local authority area. As the Minister has said, the new clause is a petty little amendment. It shows the House the Minister's obsession with forcing through as many council house sales as possible. The whole of the Minister's legislation has been insistent on pushing forward as quickly as possible with as many sales as possible. This is yet another example of that approach.
The Minister gave two examples of authorities which, he said, were dragging their feet in terms of supplying forms to tenants who wanted to buy. However, he did not point out that the new clause will apply to all local authorities. They will all have to supply forms within seven days, regardless of the circumstances in which they are operating and regardless of the staffing constraints that the Tory Government have placed upon them. I wonder whether there are any other circumstances in which a local authority or even a Government Department has to operate under such a peculiar restriction that it has to send out forms within seven days.
The Minister has not said what will happen if the request for a form is received by a local authority during a holiday period—say, wakes week, Christmas or Easter —when staff are away. He has not taken account of problems such as postal delays. He has not said whether local authorities will have sufficient money to send the forms out by first-class post or whether the seven days apply to the date on which the local authority posts the form or the date by which the tenant is supposed to receive it. I wonder, too, whether, in future, all of us will get replies to letters from this Government within seven days. Will the Government set an example?
The Minister ought not to be bringing forward the new clause. It is a petty amendment. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is symptomatic of the obsession of the Minister and his Department with council house sales and his assumption that he knows better than the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction who has moved the new clause. He is endeavouring, as are all Members on this side of the House, to ensure that council and housing association tenants are provided with every fair opportunity to take advantage of the right to buy. It is imperative to eliminate from the Housing Act 1980, via clauses such as this, any hurdles that may be erected by Labour-controlled councils in the hope that the tenant will eventually fall short of the winning post. The stakes are indeed high—a person's home — and the prize well worth the winning —ownership—and nothing should be allowed to make the going more difficult.
The new clause will assist the tenant who wishes to claim to exercise the right to buy by stipulating the provision of a form from the landlord to give such notice. It should provide a helpful step in the procedure, in stark contrast to doctrinaire Socialist local authorities, such as Welwyn/Hatfield, which apparently makes considerable use of completion notices as part of the technique of hindrance.
The new clause also illustrates clearly how the Government are determined to help fulfil the desire of the vast majority of council tenants to own their own homes by improving the system, and district councils such as my own should fully recognise that. To have had to involve my hon. Friend the Minister to speed up local sales and to find that under 15 per cent. of houses have been sold speaks volumes.
It is essential that, should the clause be passed by the House, its importance in amending the Housing Act is given maximum publicity to council tenants seeking the right to buy. The need to publish the whole advantageous scheme, together will full details of the method to be adopted in purchasing council homes, is paramount in overcoming the intransigence of Labour-controlled authorities.
I urge all hon. Members who believe it is correct to respect the hopes and aspirations of their constituents to support the Minister on the new clause. Such determination will make the right to buy one of the most successful social policy innovations of the 20th century.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO GIVE DIRECTIONS AS TO COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS

`After section 24 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—

Secretary of State's power to give directions as to covenants and conditions
24A.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that, if covenants or conditions of any kind were included in conveyances or grants of dwelling-houses of any description, the conveyances or grants would not conform with Parts I and II or, as the case may be, Parts I and III of Schedule 2 to this Act, he may direct landlords generally, landlords of a particular description or particular landlords not to include covenants or conditions of that kind in conveyances or grants of dwelling-houses of that description which are executed on or after a date specified in the direction.
(2) A direction given under this section may be varied or withdrawn by a subsequent direction so given.
(3) In this section and section 24B below any reference to conveyances or grants is a reference to conveyances or grants executed in pursuance of this Chapter.

Effect of directions on existing covenants and conditions
24B.—(1) If a direction under section 24A above so provides, the provisions of this section shall apply in relation to any covenant or condition which—

(a) was included in a conveyance or grant executed before the date specified in the direction (in this section referred to as 'the specified date'); and
(b) could not have been so included if the conveyance or grant had been executed on or after that date.

(2) The covenant or condition shall be discharged or (if the direction so provides) modified, as from the specified date, to such extent or in such manner as may be provided by the direction; and the discharge or modification shall be binding on all persons entitled or capable of becoming entitled to the benefit of the covenant or condition.
(3) The landlord by whom the conveyance or grant was executed shall within such period as may be specified in the direction—

(a) serve on the person registered as the proprietor of the dwelling-house, and on any person registered as the proprietor of a charge affecting the dwelling-house, a written notice informing him of the discharge or modification; and
(b) on behalf of the person registered as the proprietor of the dwelling-house, apply to the Chief Land Registrar (and pay the appropriate fee) for notice of the discharge or



modification to be entered in the register;
and for the purposes of enabling the landlord to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the Chief Land Registrar shall (notwithstanding section 112 of the Land Registration Act 1925) allow any person authorised by the landlord to inspect and make copies of and extracts from any register or document which is in the custody of the Chief Land Registrar and relates to the dwelling-house.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in section 64 of the Land Registration Act 1925, notice of the discharge or modification may be entered in the register without the production of any land certificate outstanding in respect of the dwelling-house, but without prejudice to the power of the Chief Land Registrar to compel production of the certificate for the purposes mentioned in that section." '.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be for the convenience of the House to take new clause 9—Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.—and Government amendments Nos. 45 to 49 and 50 and 51.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This group of amendments and clauses introduces a new power which will enable the Secretary of State to direct landlords not to include certain covenants or conditions in conveyances or leases executed in pursuance of the right to buy, if it appears to him that conveyances or leases containing such covenants or conditions would not conform with schedule 2 to the 1980 Act. The purpose of this group of amendments is not to change tenants' rights under the law as it now stands but to ensure that tenants get their legal rights in conformity with the legislation. New clause 8 introduces the new power of direction. New clause 9 and amendments Nos. 45–51 are simply consequential amendments to new clause 8 and to provisions already contained in the Bill.
The Department has received a very considerable number of complaints from tenants hoping to exercise their right to buy but objecting to covenants or conditions of sale proposed by their landlords. These have included a number of covenants and conditions which are in our view clearly unreasonable in a lease or conveyance under the right to buy and contrary to the entitlement that tenants have under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to reasonable terms. Some landlords have sought to impose conditions on tenant purchasers under the right to buy which, for instance, would put them in a worse position as home owners than if they had remained tenants with their rights under the tenants' charter. For example, a council has required that houses being sold should be used only as single private dwelling-houses for the exclusive use of the purchaser and members of his family. This is far more restrictive than the tenants' charter, under which any secure tenant may, for example, take in lodgers or, with the consent of his landlord, arrange to sublet a part of his house.
Some landlords have sought to impose positive covenants requiring the purchaser to contribute to the costs of maintaining facilities, for example a launderette and drying room, some distance from his home, which the purchaser has argued that he has never used and, indeed, was quite unaware that the facility even existed and in respect of which he is given no user rights and from which he derives no benefit other than as a member of the public.
The 1980 Act does not give landlords an unfettered right to impose whatever covenants and conditions they

think fit. Schedule 2 to the Act sets out certain parameters within which terms and conditions of sale must fall. In particular, paragraph 5 of that schedule provides that, subject to certain provisions elsewhere in the schedule, a conveyance or grant may include such covenants and conditions as are reasonable in the circumstances. We do not believe that some of the covenants and conditions which have come to our attention, to which I have briefly referred, are reasonable in the circumstances.
What can the right-to-buy purchaser do about that situation? If he believes that the covenants and conditions proposed by his landlord do not conform with the requirements of the legislation, he may, in theory, challenge those covenants and, if necessary, pursue his dispute with his landlord through the courts. But this is not a course which other than a tiny minority of right-to-buy purchasers would choose to pursue. Court action is an expensive and uncertain option. It is likely to delay the date of completion considerably and the complexity of the issues is in itself likely to daunt most right-to-buy purchasers, as it would daunt most people in a lay capacity as opposed to solicitors. In practice, therefore, most purchasers opt to accept the covenants and conditions proposed by their landlords, even where they believe that these offer them far less than their legal entitlement to reasonable terms.
I do not consider this situation satisfactory. We feel that it is imperative to give tenants greater protection. A secure tenant has a right to buy his home free from unreasonable conditions and covenants. It is important to him shat he buys his home free from unreasonable conditions. He will probably, in the fullness of time, have to resell his home. If he accepts unreasonable covenants now, it could prejudice the value and the marketability of his home when he comes to sell.
It is not right that large numbers of tenants should be faced with protracted and costly legal disputes simply in order to take advantage of their rights. We have proposed two additions to the provisions in the 1980 Act to overcome this problem. The first is the proposed new power for the Secretary of State to give assistance in legal disputes. It is already included in clause 10 of the Bill as amended in Committee. We have it in mind that the Secretary of State should use this power to assist right-to-buy purchasers in cases where difficult legal issues arise in relation to covenants or, indeed, to other matters arising under the right to buy; for example, where there is genuine doubt as to the interpretation of the legislation and where other special factors justify that financial assistance.
It is right that there should be a proposed new power of direction, which is the second of the new provisions we are proposing to tackle the problem of unreasonable covenants and conditions. Under the new clause now being discussed, the Secretary of State will have a power to direct that certain covenants and conditions be discharged or modified if it appears to them that conveyances or leases containing such covenants or conditions would not conform with schedule 2 of the Act. In contrast to the proposed power of assistance, I should emphasise that the power of direction will come into play only in relation to covenants and conditions that are clearly and manifestly at odds with the provisions of the existing legislation. In those circumstances only, it will provide a speedy remedy to tenants, without the need for protracted court proceedings.
I should emphasise that the Secretary of State's use of this power will, as always, be subject to judicial review. Any direction made by the Secretary of State relating to a covenant or condition will be open to challenge in the courts. The only local authorities who need worry about the implications of this new clause are those who may have been imposing covenants and conditions in the past, or may choose to do so in the future, which do not conform with the existing legislation.
New clause 8, in effect, inserts two new sections into the 1980 Act. The first, section 24A, provides for the basic new power of direction. The Secretary of State will have power to direct that certain covenants and conditions are not to be included in particular right-to-buy sales if it appears to him that a conveyance or lease containing the covenant or condition would not conform with schedule 2 to the Act. A direction need not necessarily apply to all right-to-buy landlords or to all right-to-buy sales of a particular landlord. Covenants that are reasonable in a lease, for example, may not be reasonable in a freehold conveyance. Equally, covenants that may reasonably be applied to property in, say, a conservation area may not be reasonable elsewhere.
A direction, once given, may be varied or withdrawn by a subsequent direction, as specified in subsection (2). It is to have no effect, of course, other than in relation to right-to-buy sales, hence subsection (3).
The second new section—section 24B—provides that a direction may apply to completed as well as to prospective sales. In most situations, it would clearly be unsatisfactory if different covenants applied in respect of neighbouring properties simply because the sale of one property was completed before a direction was issued and the other completed after it. If the direction so provides, therefore, any relevant covenant or condition in a completed conveyance or lease will be discharged or modified as appropriate from the date specified in the direction.
The mechanics following discharge or modification are also provided for in section 24B. The landlord, or former landlord, is to be under a duty to serve a written notice on the current owner of the dwelling-house, and any chargee, informing him of the discharge or modification and to apply to the chief land registrar for the change to be noted on the register.
As I have already stated, the remainder of this group of amendments is largely consequential. New clause 9 containing the Secretary of State's power to obtain information is essentially a repeat of the existing clause 9 in the Bill, which is removed by virtue of amendment No. 45. The only difference between the existing clause 9 and the new clause 9 is that the latter provides that the Secretary of State's power to obtain information shall also be exercisable for the purpose of determining whether or not he may exercise his power in this new clause to give directions as to covenants and conditions.
Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 are consequential amendments that re-order the numbers of two new clauses already agreed in Committee and that are to be inserted into the 1980 Act by the Bill. These are the Secretary of State's power to give assistance under clause 10 and the power of local authorities to contribute towards certain mortgage costs under clause 11.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are again consequential amendments to clause 19 of the Bill, which applies certain provisions of the 1980 Act to the shared ownership scheme.
I believe that the new clause and the attendant consequential amendments are necessary to serve one simple objective, which I hope can be agreed by the House. However, judging by the manner in which the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) responded previously, I am not confident that there will be unanimity, even on this basic point. We are concerned to see that individual tenants, in respect of the exercising of the right to buy, whether this relates to a house or a flat, manage to secure the legal rights that Parliament has given under the 1980 Act and is considering under this legislation. That is the simple objective of the new clause. I hope that it will be regarded as unexceptionable. I am certain, however, that judging by the way that certain authorities have behaved in imposing highly onerous covenants on some tenants and, in the process, probably jeopardising the marketability of the properties of those tenants, this power of direction is essential. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has said that the purpose behind the two new clauses is to give tenants greater protection, but the real purpose is to give the Minister even greater power. It is yet another example of an extension of that power and we on the Opposition Benches therefore oppose it.
New clause 8 gives the Secretary of State more power to give directions about the covenants and conditions that can be contained in any sale agreement. Our first objection to that is that it is another example of the Secretary of State saying that he knows best. Yet again he wants to be judge and jury about what is reasonable or not reasonable. The Minister said earlier that any dispute about covenants could be settled in the courts and explained that elsewhere in the Bill he is giving assistance to tenants or purchasers who want to take local authorities to court. Yet he obviously does not trust the courts because he wants to be able to say what is reasonable rather than leaving it to them to decide. The Minister ought to explain why he thinks he knows better than they do. As he said, what is reasonable in one set of circumstances may not be reasonable in another, yet he believes that it is he, not the local authority or the Government, who ought to decide in all circumstances.
Our second objection to the clause is shared by members of the Minister's party. Even the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' Conservative housing spokesman does not like parts of it. I understand that he takes exception to its retrospection, which also concerns us. Subsection (2) of Section 24B affects all those covenants and conditions already agreed to as part of contracts that have gone ahead in the past few years. The Minister has not made it clear what will happen to those agreements and charges that have been agreed to by both sides in the past. He is now saying that he knows today what should happen in the future to contracts that were agreed without interference from him.
If the Minister is to interfere with past contracts, what account will he take of the important fact that the price agreed for a particular purchase in the past would have taken account of any covenants and conditions laid down


at that time. If he is now to wipe out any previous covenants and conditions, it means that the previously agreed purchase price will be rendered artificially low.
The Minister has often told us that the public sector should, where possible, imitate the private sector. When someone agrees to purchase a house on a private estate or from a private builder, conditions will often be written into the agreement about what can be done with that property. Yet the Minister is ignoring all that in the private sector. He is simply saying that local authorities or public landlords must be subject to new powers, that he must decide what is reasonable in any given circumstances, how they must behave and what conditions they can put into sales agreements. We are, therefore, opposed to the Minister's proposals, especially with regard to new clause 8.
We have discussed new clause 9 in Committee, albeit briefly. The Minister knows that we are not happy with the intention behind it. Here again he is extending his power to intervene: we have Big Brother breathing down the necks of the local authorities once more. The Minister is taking on himself power to demand any papers that the local authority may have on any matters relating to sales. We are not talking merely about those authorities that may be in conflict with the Minister or about local authorities against which the Minister is taking action. As new clause 9 reads, the Minister can now demand any papers from any authority at any time in any circumstances on the basis that he may be considering intervention at some later stage. That is a blank cheque for the Minister to interfere and to call for any information from any local authority officer, just as the fancy takes him.
The Minister may be putting many local government officials in a difficult position. They will have to decide whether they are to obey an instruction from the Secretary of State or an instruction from their employers. We do not think that the Minister should put individual local authority employees in this position. If the Minister believes that there is a case to be answered by a local authority, then he should take action against it rather than intimidate officials into giving him information on an individual basis by directing them to provide him with papers.
Neither new clause 8 nor new clause 9 is justifiable. They are another example of the Minister interfering in the affairs of local authorities. We are very unhappy with the progress that the Minister is suggesting on these particular clauses.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady's comments on new clause 9 are quite the wrong way round. If a local authority believes that a covenant is reasonable, I should expect it to volunteer the information. The only reason for hiding it is if a covenant is unreasonable. She says that local authorities may complain about too much interference from central Government. As this pair of clauses is part of what I might call the Greenwich parts of the Housing and Building Control Bill, I should like her to know that the greatest complaints in Greenwich at the moment are about too little Government interference, now that all ratepayers —domestic, industrial and commercial — are having to suffer a 30 per cent. increase. There is a ratepayers', residents' and tenants' revolt in Greenwich, and I believe these new clauses will help to calm especially council tenants who want to buy and those who have bought.
On new clause 8, two major complaints brought to me —besides general interference with the right to buy—have been about amenity charges for launderettes and for greens. Many would-be purchasers and some who have bought after reluctantly accepting covenants, but putting their trust in my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, have said that they do not even know where their launderettes are, and they are certainly not always within useable distance. If found, they do not always work, and there is no reason to believe that they are for the exclusive use of council tenants or residents of a particular estate or area.
It is unreasonable for this to be put on the housing revenue account and for people who have bought the freehold or long leasehold of their home to have to pay for a share in municipal enterprises which appear to run at a loss.
As regards greens, until people started buying their homes from the local authority no one knew that greens were paid for out of the housing revenue account. I do not believe that even the council knew. The assumption was that they were paid for out of rates. They ought to be paid for out of rates. Not only do I believe it to be wrong to allow covenants to be maintained that will require people who have bought their homes to continue to pay for what are often dogs' lavatories, but I believe that existing tenants should not be required to pay for them out of rents. The burden should be put on the rates instead. If they are part of amenity land, they are available to people whether they own their homes or not. It is wrong that a restrictive covenant, requiring people to pay an uncertain amount that may increase with the rate of inflation, or any different amount, should continue.
There are also covenants requiring people in houses that they could externally decorate themselves to have them redecorated by the council. When the council has been asked to give an estimate before a right to buy has gone through, it has made one estimate and then has made another which may be more than double the first. When asked to justify the difference, it has not done so. It has picked a figure out of the sky. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that kind of uncertain covenant as this new clause goes through.
The Government and my party have gained the reputation of being on the side of ordinary people who want the chance to buy their homes without restrictions that will continue into the future. The local and national Labour parties are making a big mistake in even suggesting that, for reasons of mobility and so on, they want to hinder people owning their own homes. I look forward to the time when people can own their homes without restriction. We can then concentrate on increasing the number of homes available to people under forms of tenure that they will choose.

Mr. John Cartwright: Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I want to relate my brief comments on new clause 8 to the experience of our constituents at the hands of the London borough of Greenwich. In the past, I have wearied both the Standing Committee and the House with details of some of the service charges that are applied by the London borough of Greenwich. I do not propose to repeat them, but I endorse the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West.
The oddest service charge that has come to my notice recently is one that is being levied on a number of people buying council houses—£90 a year for the upkeep of a tenants' meeting room. I do not know why people who become owner-occupiers should be required to maintain a tenants' meeting room.
This very small room was at the bottom of a block of flats, next to the laundry, and in no sense could it be termed a meeting room. It would not hold many people, there was not one chair in it, and it was in a bad state of decoration. Yet my constituents who are buying their homes are apparently expected to pay for the upkeep of a room which no one can remember having been used for a meeting.
I wish to concentrate on the restrictive covenant element of the new clause. I should like to quote from the transfer document produced by the London borough of Greenwich, which runs to 11 pages of restrictions and conditions on those who purchase their homes. For example, the transferors—the council—
shall have power at all times without obtaining any consent from or making any compensation to the Transferee"—
the purchaser—
to deal as the Transferors may think fit with any lands or buildings adjoining opposite or near to the property hereby transferred and to erect or suffer to be erected on any adjoining opposite or neighbouring land any buildings whatsoever whether such buildings shall or shall not affect or diminish the light or air which may now or at any time hereafter be enjoyed by the Transferee".
That is an extraordinary way for a local council to operate in relation to any of its citizens, whether or not they are buying their council houses. The council is saying that it has a total and absolute right to build whatever it likes, whatever the effects may be on one of its citizens who has purchased his own home.
In addition, the purchaser must agree:
Not to make any alterations or additions to the existing dwellinghouse garage …or fences nor erect or construct any additional building
without first gaining permission of the local authority and paying the reasonable fees of the local authority.
Particularly annoying is the fact that the purchaser must agree:
Not to keep or allow to be kept any animal other than one cat and/or small bird or (in the case of a dwelling with a garden attached) one dog, cat and/or a small bird".
Apparently, Greenwich tenants are allowed to keep a marvellous combination of animals. That is an intrusive and offensive condition when applied to council tenants, but I simply cannot understand why it should apply to people who have bought the freehold of their own homes. I could quote other examples, the restrictive nature of which is similar.
I endorse what the Minister has said. Solicitors in my area have clearly said that if a purchaser tries to sell his property later such covenants will make it difficult because of the restrictions that they impose on the way in which anyone can live in the property. As a result, the retail value will be affected.
I understand the case made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor). I do not like Government interference in local authority affairs. As a general principle, I am opposed to it. However, when she says that

those who have a complaint against their local authority can go to the courts, I begin to wonder whether she lives in the same world as the rest of us.
We are talking about council tenants—people who have never bought a house before, and most of whom have never before been across the threshold of a solicitor's office. They are completely at sea about all this. When they tell us that the council has been most unfair and we say, "Terribly sorry, but you must go to court", we know only too well what their reaction will be. There is no way in which they can take such legal redress. Anxious though I am about increased Government interference in the affairs of local authorities, I believe that people who have used their rights under the law and bought their council houses are entitled to some protection when their rights are undermined by local authorities. On those grounds, I support new clause 8.

Mr. Stanley: I shall not reply now as I believe that an early vote is expected and the Opposition wish to press on.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ETC.

"Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.
'(1) After section 24B of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
24C.—(l) Where it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient for the purpose of determining whether his powers under section 23, 24A or 24B above are exercisable, or for or in connection with the exercise of those powers, the Secretary of State may by notice in writing to a landlord require it—

(a) at such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice, to produce any document; or
(b) within such period as may be so specified or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, to furnish a copy of any document or supply any information;

and any officer of the landlord designated in the notice for that purpose or having custody or control of the document or in a position to give the information shall, without instructions from the landlord, take all reasonable steps to ensure that the notice is complied with.
(2) Any reference in subsection (1) above to a landlord includes a reference to—

(a) a landlord by whom a conveyance or grant was executed in pursuance of this Chapter; and
(b) a body which has become a mortgagee in consequence of the exercise by a secure tenant of the right to a mortgage."

(2) Subsection (5) of section 23 of the 1980 Act (which is superseded by subsection (1) above) shall be omitted and in subsection (11) of that section for the words "subsection (5) to (10)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (6) to (10)".'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

LIMITED PERIOD OF LIABILITY

'A civil action against any person for a breach of duty on his part in acting as an inspector appointed under this Act shall not be brought more than ten years from the time when the breach of duty occurred, any rule of law or enactment to the contrary notwithstanding.'.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause relates to part II of the Bill which sets out the building control provisions. It supersedes the new clause that I tabled in Committee, which was disallowed because in part it was outside the scope of the Bill.
The purpose is to limit the period of liability for latent defects, but, to be in order, the new clause can refer only to an approved
inspector, appointed under this Act".
The objective is to mitigate what will generally be accepted on both sides as an admitted defect in the law of liability.
The public interest in avoiding building defects is safeguarded through the administration of building control. If a defect occurs, an injured party has a remedy in damages that can be awarded by the civil courts. It is necessary that the position of approved inspectors should be made clear, as should be the position of everyone else involved in the building process. There is a need to amend the law as a result of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Anns v. the London borough of Merton in 1977. Indeed, that point was acknowledged by the Lords of Appeal in the more recent case of the Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber and Partners in December 1982.
Anns v. Merton made clear the general legal principle for defining the liabilities of public authorities of all kinds for negligence in the performance of their statutory functions. The problem was that in its wisdom the House of Lords decided that the limitation period begins when the defective state of the building first appeared—not, for example, when the breach of duty occurred or from when the property was conveyed to the injured party. The House might have thought that the Pirelli case resolved the position and makes it tenable, at least until Parliament in its wisdom decides to amend the law.
Pirelli stated that the limitation starts when the damage occurs—not when it becomes apparent. However, two difficulties arise. First, as I understand the position, the law is not explicit as to when the damage occurs. Secondly, a careful perusal of the Pirelli case shows that the limitation period for a local authority is different from when the damage occurs, because the local authority's responsibility under Acts of Parliament is from the time when there is danger to the health or safety of occupants. Therefore, local authorities have a longer period of liability.
This matter has caused concern because anyone—or, indeed, every party to the building process—now cannot know whether he has ceased to be at risk for claims unless —I should add, for the sake of legal precision—the building in question has been demolished for a period of at least six years. I forget who built the Tower of London, but he or his successor—according to my interpretation of the law, and under the law as interpreted by the House of Lords and the Lords of Appeal—is, I suppose, still at risk for a claim.
I assert that it is unreasonable to assume that approved inspectors, or a builder or designer of a building, or anyone else, should be expected to have the resources—they would need to be considerable resources—to cover the risk of claims for an indefinite period. It is unjust to expect that, and in my opinion Parliament should

acknowledge that. I believe that the present interpretation of the law is an impediment to the administration of justice and defeats the purpose for which the Limitation Acts have been passed.
The new clause that I tabled in Committee need in no way prejudice the long-awaited proposal of the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee looking into this whole matter of the law of liability for latent defects. This new clause, which is more limited, also need not prejudice its proposals. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will tell the House when the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee will report. I know that the Minister is aware, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware, that it is vital and urgent that this matter which affects not only approved inspectors but local authorities and other public authorities, as well as builders, architects and property owners, should be cleared up. At least parts of parts II and III of the Bill are prejudiced and, in all practicality, could not be introduced or implemented until the law of liability is dealt with.

Mr. Robert Litherland: In our Second Reading debate and throughout Committee, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) expressed his concern and that of the RIBA about the law of liability. The hon. Gentleman expressed amazement in an earlier debate that there was no time limit to liability in the present law, and he endeavoured to introduce a new clause in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman and the Government are aware of the grave reservations that architects have about this part of the Bill. They have expressed their opinions in no uncertain terms. It has been said that only an idiot would accept such responsibilities of unlimited liability. The president of the RIBA firmly pointed out that the present state of the law places an indefinite and unreasonable burden on architects, and said that the RIBA could not recommend to its members the changes that are envisaged. That is why the new clause has been introduced by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet at this stage.
The Government have not convinced the building fraternity that the Bill's provisions will enhance standards of construction. It believes that the standards of health and safety will be lowered if building control becomes a mixture of public bodies, private individuals, professional practices and other organisations.
We have felt throughout the Bill, and it is clear from the correspondence that we have received, that there is no real desire for change. The public want protection and a feeling of security. They want to know that the building that they occupy is safe—not that if it were to fall down around them they would be able to claim on insurance. I agree with NALGO's view that the building control function should remain democratically accountable and certainly independent. The new concept is unwieldy, impractical and intended to destroy the local authority building control service.
The RIBA has advanced arguments for amending the law. It says that, as a matter of public policy, building owners and others should be entitled to reasonable protection against latent defects. It is not satisfied that justice and public interest are adequately served by the law as it stands. Indeed, one might query what is reasonable and what is protection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet would agree that good design, good


workmanship and good materials are the first priority. In his clause he proposes a definite limitation on the period of liability and suggests that
a civil action against any person for a breach of duty on his part in acting as an inspector … shall not be brought more than ten years from the time when the breach of duty occurred".
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the areas of vagueness.
In Committee and in the Chamber I have referred to a whole estate in my constituency that is now being demolished after only 11 years. There are 1,000 dwellings on the estate. The cost is in millions of pounds. I suggest that that could not be insured privately. The new clause may seek to rectify faults in the law of liability, but I am afraid that they are so complex that they would require a far more detailed reappraisal. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I am afraid that his new clause is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Ted Graham: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was right when he said that the present state of the law will make parts II and III of the Bill unworkable unless there are major changes in the law of liability. Apparently, the Government have been given advice by people who have assured them that if the Bill becomes law it will work. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has been assured by his many contacts in the building construction industry that it will not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has given us the views of professional people involved in the construction business. Moreover, in Committee we heard the evidence of many people who are quite happy for the Bill to work, provided changes are made.
We must recognise the enormity of the change that is involved, from a situation that is designed to prevent defects to one that provides compensation once the defects have become apparent.
5 pm
Let me remind the House of what the former Secretary of State for the Environment said when the changes in the building regulations were being considered. At a conference in 1979 he said:
Let me trail one in front of you—without, let me stress this, any commitment. Why should local authorities bear this enormous responsibility for all construction put up in their area? If anything goes wrong, years later, and the builder has departed the scene, then the local authority, which can never depart the scene, is required to answer.
That is the position that is enjoyed by every consumer, ratepayer, and person who is likely to suffer a hurt or detriment under the present law. If, at the end of the day, the court awards vast sums in damages that are not covered by any insurance the local authority must pick up the pieces.
The Government are seeking to change that. The new clause seeks to bring about a necessary limitation. The Government have a difficult job of marrying that which is impossible to get—a workable insurance arrangement—with their determination to foist upon the House and the British people a situation that will not work.
Let me quote from a letter that was sent to the ubiquitous Mr. Watson. The British Insurance Association said:
Professional liability insurance would inevitably be subject to limits of amount and time and some basic policy conditions.

That is what the new clause seeks to do. The Government have already said that they are not prepared to make any changes before the Lord Chancellor's report on liability is produced. One of the basic, crucial and stupendous weaknesses of the Bill is that the element upon which it rests—adequate insurance—is being denied support by the insurance industry.
Although the new clause has provided a useful peg upon which to hang the arguments that have been going backwards and forwards, I regret that the Bill is unworkable in the general field. If the Government seek merely to operate the scheme in the low rise, National House Building Council context there will be other problems as well. The National House Building Council is doing a good job within its limits but it is simply yet another insurance company in this context. It provides its warranty and then seeks to meet the defects that arise. However, it is not competent to take on the task that the Minister has said is likely to flow from the Bill. Labour Members remain sceptical, not only of the premises upon which the Bill is based but also upon the ability of the Government, the industry and the British people to make it work.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that the Government share their concern at the current state of the law on liability and we hope that a solution can be found that is fairer to all parties concerned. I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting his new clause in order on this occasion and on explaining clearly what is a confused position.
I understand how strongly the architectural profession feels about the difficulties with which it is faced by the present law of liability. It seems to it unfair that long after the normal six-year period for actions in negligence has expired it can find itself in court justifying design work that it thought had been successfully finished perhaps as long as 20 years previously. The feeling of unfairness is shared by other professions involved in the design and construction of buildings and also by building contractors. Local authorities, in their role as building control authorities, are also conscious of the burden that the present apparently unlimited liability lays on them as well.
I have much sympathy with what has been said about the new clause. However, three points must be borne in mind as we consider it. First, as has already been touched on, we must remember that the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee is examining the law of liability and its application to cases where damage may have been latent for a considerable time. Latent damage in buildings is obviously an important part of the question, but it is not the whole of it. Latent damage can be found in other areas—for example, in the drafting of wills by solicitors where defects may be undetected for years and are discovered only when the will is proved. Therefore, we must be careful not to pre-empt the conclusions of the Law Reform Committee on the broader front.
I regret that I cannot say when the committee will finish its deliberations and produce its report, but I hope that it will be as soon as possible. As we made clear in Committee, we do not accept the proposition that this section of the Bill cannot be implemented until the Law Reform Committee has completed its work. I shall not


weary the House with the details, but on several occasions in Committee we explained on what basis the insurance arrangements outlined in the Bill can proceed.
The second point to bear in mind is that, given the strong likelihood that the Law Reform Committee will recommend some change in the general law of liability, any provision that we might make in this limited area would inevitably be only an interim change, possibly of short duration. It would soon require further changes to bring it into line with whatever general solution may be proposed following the Law Reform Committee's considerations. Such a succession of changes would be confusing and would not be in the best interests of those concerned. After all, we are talking about the need for long term certainty in an area that is at present blighted by uncertainty.
Thirdly, we must consider the potential unfairness of changing the liability for private certification on its own. Not only would the architects and engineers have a different liability for their design work, or even for any work of supervision carried out under their ordinary contracts, not only would contractors have a different liability for their part of the work, but local authorities would be obliged to carry a significantly different burden of liability—indefinite as opposed to confined. The new clause does not affect local authorities and I do not see how one can begin to justify that on grounds of equity.
For those reasons, the Government cannot support the new clause and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it in the light of my comments.

Mr. Chapman: I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Minister and I appreciate his pertinent comments. I have also listened to the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and I concede immediately that my new clause has been drawn far too narrowly for the wishes of hon. Members. In the hope that legislation will be put before Parliament in the next Session—whether this or the other side of a general election—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

PROTECTION FOR ELDERLY ORPHANS AND OTHERS

`In section 34 of the Housing Act 1980 at the end shall be added—
(5) In considering subsection 3(a) above the court must take account of:

(a) the age of the tenant; and
(b) the length of residence of the tenant in the dwelling house; and
(c) the financial, physical or other support given by the tenant to the previous tenant; and
(d) where the landlord claims possession on the ground of under-occupation evidence of the efforts of the landlord to encourage other over-occupiers to transfer to smaller dwelling houses; and
(e) the social and financial consequences of making the order on other carers for elderly dependants who may be discouraged from continuing to reside with and care for elderly dependants.".'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the elderly orphan problem. It will diminish but it is acute to those who suffer. It deals with people who

stay at home until the age of 40, 60 or even 70, caring for elderly relations, who, when their elderly surviving parent dies, may be required to move from the council home in which they have lived for up to 50 years. It is a diminishing problem because with the right-to-buy legislation more and more families will own their home and be able to stay in it, only moving when they choose to.
At present the law is in great doubt. The only case of which I know is that of the London borough of Greenwich and Mr. Peter Hunt where the judgment was that Mr. Hunt could stay in his home but only because he had a damaged leg. I want the courts to take account of the effect on other elderly orphans being forced to move. My predecessor, Mr. Bill Hamling, helped to found the national council for the single woman and her dependants, which is now called the national council for carers and elderly dependants. If the new clause is not approved by the House, the matter will be taken up in another place where I suspect that it will be carried whatever the advice of the Attorney-General's Department on the possible defects in the drafting. There will clearly be a good attendance in another place and I believe that the Members there will transfer their attentions on charitable housing associations to the new clause to ensure that something is written in.
It is important that councils should consider that what they are doing is reasonable. In Committee the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Bootle (Mr. Roberts), and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) expressed much sympathy for people like Mr. Hunt and others in similar situations. I am grateful to the London borough of Greenwich for giving serious consideration to the representations made by local Members of Parliament a week or so ago. We are awaiting a review of its policy. However, if we want to be caring in the community and to make it easier for people to carry out their family responsibilities, we want to make sure that poor council tenants are in the same position as those who are able to buy their own homes and as private tenants.

Mr. David Ennals: I have a great deal of sympathy for the new clause. I wish to touch only on paragraph (b)—
the length of residence of the tenant in the dwelling house".
I do so because in Committee on 3 February, the Minister, in columns 822 and 823, castigated the Norwich city council for its policy on mutual exchange to secure the right to buy. The Minister was most unfair to Norwich council. He falsified its motives, and I wish to record its problems, which are revealing.
At least one member of the city council became aware of a practice that had emerged whereby two tenants would agree to exchange properties, and when one tenant was moving into a modernised property or into a property in a sought-after area that tenant would pay the other a sum of money—in effect, key money for the privilege of moving. Therefore, the intention was for that tenant to submit a right-to-buy application in respect of the property into which he or she had recently moved.
If that practice had been allowed to continue, it would have meant that all of the newer and more desirable council houses could have been sold off under the existing right-to-buy provisions, leaving the city without an adequate range of alternative stock to meet its other statutory housing duties. I was surprised that the Minister criticised the Norwich city council for using a provision


in the Housing Act 1980 to regulate and fulfil its housing obligation reasonably without being a willing party to a most undesirable practice, which I have described, and which has been described by the Norwich city council.

Mr. Stanley: In response to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s), I make it clear that the effect of what Norwich council was doing was to make a mutual exchange between Norwich council tenants conditional on their surrendering secure tenancy status. Therefore, they were surrendering their legal right to buy their homes. I regard it as indefensible that one should manipulate the wishes of a tenant to try to arrange a mutual exchange so as to deprive him or her of legal rights agreed by the House.
I am in sympathy with the intention behind the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He has set out clearly why he felt that there was a possible or threatened injustice with regard to his constituent Mr. Peter Hunt. I agree with him that local authorities should adopt a sensitive and compassionate approach on a case-by-case basis when deciding whether a successor tenant should remain in a family home when a parent has died. I hope that, as a matter of policy, we would agree on that on both sides of the House.
However, although I sympathise with the intention behind the new clause, my overriding concern must be whether the new clause would, in the courts' interpretation, serve the best interest of the successor tenant. My hon. Friend has referred specifically to the case of Mr. Hunt. The case in question arose when the council served notice seeking possession under ground 13 of schedule 4 to the Housing Act 1980, when Mr. Peter Hunt's mother died.
This provides a ground to repossess where, under the succession rules set out in section 30(2)(b) of the 1980 Act, a member of the family, other than the spouse, of the previous tenant has succeeded to the tenancy and the dwelling is thereby under-occupied. Section 34(2) of the Act requires that a court shall not make the order for seeking possession unless the court both considers it reasonable to do so and is satisfied that suitable accommodation will be available for the tenant when the order takes effect. New clause 3 seeks to amplify the reasonableness test by requiring that five specific factors should be taken into account when the court considers the order for possession.
Having considered the evidence most carefully with my legal advisers, including the judgment in the Peter Hunt case, which my hon. Friend kindly sent me, the clear legal conclusion is that the new clause is not necessary and, more important, could actually work against the interests of successor tenants in some circumstances. I should like to elaborate on both points.
5.15 pm
I briefly explain the reasons for this, as I hope that it will help my hon. Friend. The case for specifying in primary legislation particular factors as to what should be taken into account in assessing reasonableness rests on the presumption that the courts may not otherwise take into account all the relevant factors in deciding whether possession is reasonable. I am unaware of any other reported decisions on possession orders in the case of

secure tenancies using ground 13, apart from the Peter Hunt case. However, I am advised that the court will consider every relevant circumstance in assessing reasonableness. This is certainly the position under section 98 of the Rent Act 1977 when a court determines whether repossession is reasonable, for example, in the case of a private landlord seeking repossession of a house to live in it himself under case 9, schedule 15 of the Rent Act 1977.
In the case involving Peter Hunt the court did not agree the council's repossession order because in the court's opinion suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant was not available as is required under section 34(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1980.
The court went on to consider whether, if suitable alternative accommodation had been available, it would have been reasonable to make the possession order. The court decided that it would have been reasonable. However, it would not be right to conclude that, although the court on this count said it would have found in favour of Greenwich council rather than in favour of Mr. Hunt, this means that the court ignored other factors, to which my hon. Friend referred. The judgment makes it clear that the court found the defendant's arguments relating to his personal circumstances attractive, but not sufficiently so as to outweigh the council's housing responsibilities. The judgment goes so far as to record that the court weighed everything, including factors other than those just mentioned. My hon. Friend is also recorded in the judgment as giving evidence which brought an important factor into consideration, although the nature of the evidence is not recorded.
Both in this specific case, therefore, and in the light of the considerable body of case law in repossession cases as to what courts can take into account in assessing reasonableness, I do not believe that my hon. Friend should conclude that the factors that he has specified in his new clause would be ignored by a court. It does not, therefore, seem that the new clause is necessary.
However, in addition, I am advised that to specify one particular set of factors—and there are a great many more that could be specified—is likely to work against the interests of tenants generally. Specifying factors would be likely to result in added weight being given to the specified factors and less weight being given to other factors not specified, which could be even more significant in other individual cases. The courts would be likely to conclude that Parliament's purpose in specifying certain factors but not others was to give particular stress to some factors at the expense of others.
For example, a factor not mentioned in the new clause is the health of the tenant, yet in a particular case that could be decisive in enabling a tenant to remain in his home. If we rest on the general requirement of reasonable, that factor could be regarded as being of the utmost and indeed decisive importance. However, if we were to adopt the new clause the decisiveness of the health factor could perhaps be successfully challenged by the council seeking possession because it had not been referred to in the legislation.
For those reasons, although I sympathise with the intentions behind my hon. Friend's wishes to have his constituents in Greenwich properly treated, and I agree that the council in the case to which he has referred should have been more helpful to his constituent, I am not persuaded that the new clause specifying new factors would, in the generality of cases, necessarily be


advantageous and helpful in achieving a fair and equitable solution on a case-by-case basis to the successor tenant problem. From my explanation, which I have made as full as possible, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why there are good and sound legal reasons why we have not accepted his new clause.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I give him notice that in due time my provisions will pass into the statute law of the country. I suggest that he gets his advisers on to what I am after and what he has said that he is after so that what we agree upon is put into a form that he believes will not have adverse effects.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) are to do with the past and are not tested by the judgment in the Hunt case. Subsection (5)(e) relates to the general effect on others and care in the community. That is part of Government policy and the public good. I am willing to withdraw the new clause but I shall return to it. I suggest that my hon. Friend gets his thinking cap on, kicks his legal advisers and tells them that what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West is after is what the Minister is after, that that is what they should be after and that it should be got on to the statute book so that we can all be satisfied.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

APPROVED INSPECTOR TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

`An approved inspector who gives an initial notice shall until a final notice has been given under section 28 be precluded, either by himself or by an agent, from providing any services or exercising any functions in relation to the work specified in the notice other than the provision of services and the exercise of functions for enforcing the building regulations.'—[Mr. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 10 is yet another attempt by the Opposition to write on to the face of the Bill words that will make it abundantly clear that there is no dubiety about the independence of approved inspectors.
We have received advice from all quarters about the unease that is and will be felt by the professional bodies involved about the Bill in its present form. The Institute of Building Control Officers, the Society of Chief Building Control Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National and Local Government Officers Association, and a range of architects, surveyors and engineers who, perhaps, in the fullness of time will earn the accolade of "approved inspector", are uneasy. I accept that the Minister and his advisers understand that tests of independence have been set up. Nevertheless, we must be clear that there is complete independence.
We want to ensure that as long as an approved inspector supervises building control regulations on a project—once he has given an initial notice until the final notice has been given under section 28—he shall be precluded, either by himself or by an agency, from providing any service or exercising any function in relation to that work.
We accept that people who are appointed as approved inspectors will be competent men or women. We hope that

there will eventually be a system by which approved inspectors will not merely have to have the appropriate letters after their name automatically to qualify as approved inspectors. They should also have additional training. We want a system that ensures that the qualities and character of an approved inspector are what we would like.
In the business world, there is what one might call a close relationship between partnerships of architects, surveyors, engineers and other professionals. We envisage circumstances in which a competent, qualified and honest person carrying out his examination of a project in compliance with the building regulations will have to decide whether to approve, disapprove, stop or start a project when such decisions cut across his professional judgment and may have a direct effect on commercial interests that will be disadvantaged if he acts on them.
That cannot occur under the present system. A building inspector's decision may cut across the best interests of a professional association or body. The independence and integrity of public building inspectors is not challenged as being other than in the best interests of the builder, the developer and the consumer.
When the Minister rejected a similar amendment in Committee, he said that the relationship that we hinted at could not be envisaged for all-time. We have redrawn it simply to say that, as long as an inspector carries out his functions between issuing the initial notice and issuing the final one—that may take six months or two years—he should have no relationship with anyone if that relationship impugns his independence.
The Opposition hope that the Minister will take the intention of the new clause on board. It is intended to make it crystal clear on the face of the Bill that there will be no dubiety about the independence of the inspectors when they undertake their major responsibilities. I strongly hope that the new clause will be accepted.

Sir George Young: The objective of new clause 10 is to ensure that approved inspectors who check designs and supervise construction work act independently and are not engaged in any other capacity on the work in question.
We explained in Committee that we understand and share that objective. I am happy to repeat it. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) explained his intention. We share it. However, the drafting of the new clause in no way matches the hon. Gentleman's intention, as I shall explain. The Bill already contains the mechanisms that we need to ensure that the certifiers are independent. I hope to convince the House that those mechanisms will be more flexible and reliable than they would be under new clause 10.
The hon. Gentleman wants to prevent the designer from being judge and jury in his own case and does not want someone who has designed a major building or piece of construction work to be entirely and solely responsible for deciding whether it complies with the building regulations. He wants an independent check but the new clause as drafted would not achieve that end. It would exclude a certifier from any other involvement with the project only between the service of the initial notice and the giving of a final certificate. It would not prevent someone who had designed a building from then proceeding to serve an initial notice in respect of it as an approved inspector.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fundamental defect in the new clause. It would not give him the assurance that he wants. We shall achieve that objective and secure the independence of the certifier through regulations under clause 24 which require an approved inspector who serves an initial notice to declare that he has no involvement in the design of the project, and that he has no connection with it, other than as certifier. The new clause does not do that. Local authorities would be required to reject initial notices which did not contain such a declaration. Further regulations could be made under clause 28 to require final certificates to confirm that the certifier's independence was maintained when he was exercising his functions as an approved inspector. It will, of course, be an offence under clause 34 to make a fake statement in an initial notice of a final certificate.
Proceeding in that way by regulations would not only enable us to establish firm control over the independence of certifiers of major projects; it would enable us to distinguish projects where the independence of the certifier is essential from minor works where it might be reasonable to allow limited self-certification. That idea was advanced in our command paper on the future of building control. In paragraph 28 we suggested that "self-certifiable" categories to be specified in regulations would include
single storey house extensions not exceeding 60 metre squared in area;
and
alterations in low rise houses within the existing envelope;
That has been supported by the Royal Institution of British Architects and the Institution of Structural Engineers, who have urged on us the importance of preserving the possibility of limited self-certification. It would be wrong now to close the door on self-certification in those cases. There must be the fullest possible public consultation on the precise limits before regulations are laid. Against that background, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Graham: Yet again the Minister asks the House to accept his assurance that all will be well in the prescribed regulations. We are not prepared to accept that assurance. We want those words written into the Bill, and when the matter is put to the vote we shall support it.

It being half-past Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 265.

Division No. 98]
[5.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)


Alton, David
Bradley, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cant, R. B.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Carmichael, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McTaggart, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crowther, Stan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Mikardo, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davidson, Arthur
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Deakins, Eric
Newens, Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
Ogden, Eric


Dixon, Donald
O'Halloran, Michael


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunnett, Jack
Parker, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Penhaligon, David


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


English, Michael
Race, Reg


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Richardson, Jo


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Evans, John (Newton)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Faulds, Andrew
Robertson, George


Field, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, J. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roper, John


Ford, Ben
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foulkes, George
Rowlands, Ted


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Sandelson, Neville


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sever, John


Freud, Clement
Sheerman, Barry


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, John
Short, Mrs Renée


Graham, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Silverman, Julius


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Spriggs, Leslie


Home Robertson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Hooley, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Stoddart, David


Hoyle, Douglas
Strang, Gavin


Huckfield, Les
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Janner, Hon Greville
Tilley, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


John, Brynmor
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Warden, Gareth


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Welsh, Michael


Kerr, Russell
White, Frank R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Kinnock, Neil
Whitlock, William


Lambie, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamond, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Leighton, Ronald
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Winnick, David


Litherland, Robert
Woodall, Alec


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wright, Sheila






Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. James Hamilton and



Mr. George Morton.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Gardner, Sir Edward


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Best, Keith
Greenway, Harry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, John
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hayhoe, Barney


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Brotherton, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hicks, Robert


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Budgen, Nick
Hooson, Tom


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hordern, Peter


Butcher, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clegg, Sir Walter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cockeram, Eric
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs Jill


Corrie, John
Knox, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Lang, Ian


Cranbome, Viscount
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Le Merchant, Spencer


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Loveridge, John


Eggar, Tim
Luce, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacGregor, John


Farr, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P, (New F'st)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McQuarrie, Albert


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Antony





Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Mellor, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spence, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Percival, Sir Ian
Walker, B. (Perth)


Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Pollock, Alexander
Wall, Sir Patrick


Porter, Barry
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walters, Dennis


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Ward, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitney, Raymond


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Hugh
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rost, Peter



Royle, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Five o'clock.

Clause 1

EXTENSION TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 2, line 7, leave out `of 22' and insert exceeding 21'.

`No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert—
'(4) Where a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter 1 of


Part I of the 1980 Act, the tenancy shall be treated for the purposes of Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) as being a long tenancy notwithstanding that the lease is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years.'—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 2

EXTENSION TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD IS A CHARITY

Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 11, leave out from `arise' to end of line 13 and insert
'unless the project is one to which the Secretary of State has given his approval after 1st July 1983, and which will qualify for grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act and is a project which includes—'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'under section 29 of the 1974 Act' and insert 'from public funds'.

Mr. Benyon: I first declare my interest as a governor of the Peabody Trust, which is one of the largest charitable housing trusts situated entirely in London. It was set up some 120 years ago to provide decent housing for Londoners in need. It has been represented to me that the drafting of this amendment is deficient in certain respects. I do not believe that it is, but in any event the purport is clear. The date has been chosen because it is well ahead of the probable Royal Assent to the Bill and thus avoids the criticism made in Committee that any earlier date would produce uncertainty for schemes in the course of completion.
The amendment is concerned with an important matter of principle. The donor to a charity, whether it be Government, institution or individual, accepts the object of that charity. The donor may impose conditions on his gift, but provided those conditions are met and the object of the charity upheld the gift is irredeemable.
If the Government had said to charitable housing trusts in the past, "We are offering this HAG money on condition that you sell the houses that you produce," there would be no quarrel with this clause. Those conditions were not imposed, so the Government's actions under this clause are retrospective and unjust.
Like other similar charities, we select our tenants on the basis of need. Thereafter, the tenant may prosper and be in a position to buy his or her own house. At the moment those tenants either stay in the existing house paying a full, fair rent or they move elsewhere.
The Charity Commissioners were asked about this point and gave a decision on it in 1979 after exhaustive legal consultations. They said:
We agree that while it would be lawful for charitable housing associations to take the proper steps to evict occupiers who have ceased to be poor, it is not practicable to evict such people except in extreme circumstances. In our view property occupied by such people must be regarded as being held by the association temporarily as an investment.
This matter was placed by the National Federation of Housing Associations before the Attorney-General, who represents the Crown as guardian of charities. On 9 March a reply was sent to the National Federation of Housing Associations by the Solicitor-General. It is rather unfortunate that neither of the Law Officers is here.

Mr. Graham: They were not in Committee either.

Mr. Benyon: The letter is rather long, but as it is so important I feel that I must put it on the record. The Solicitor-General said:
I share the views expressed by the Minister and as this part of the matter is so important would like to stress some of the salient points. My view is that the best test of 'necessitous circumstances' is whether the individual is 'going short'
This was discussed exhaustively in Committee. The Solicitor-General then quotes the case of Re Coulthurst. He continues that it
must be judged by reference to all the circumstances. It is a test which should be applied not only on initial letting but also in relation to continued occupation.
This means that charities need to keep the circumstances of their tenants under review so as to verify that they remain in need and therefore proper beneficiaries of the charity. It does not mean that they would have to take action every time there is a change of circumstances for the better by an individual tenant, but it does mean that they will have to give some consideration to such changes and would be well advised to consult with their lawyers if and when any extensive changes with long term effects take place.
At the best that is an uncertain direction compared with the definite opinion of the Charity Commissioners which I have just quoted and which was arrived at after exhaustive legal discussions. When lawyers disagree, wise men run for cover. In either case now, the property eventually returns to the trust which can then relet to other tenants who fall within the definition contained in the trust deed.
It was implied in Committee that if we were doing our job properly in such trusts, there would be few applications to purchase because our tenants would not have the means to do so, but that misses the point. Although we are in the business of supplying houses to those in need, it is not our business to stop tenants prospering—in fact, quite the reverse: we welcome it. However, once that house is lost it can never be used again for the purpose for which it was intended.
It is easy to say, as was said often in Committee, that only a proportion of the charitable housing stock will be affected. In our case it is about 2,000 dwellings out of 12,000. That in itself creates difficulties. It will not be easy to explain to a tenant that he does not have the right to buy whereas his neighbour in the same development does. That is quite apart from the administrative difficulties in what, in most cases, are composite developments.
The real social problem will arise in the future. The trouble with housing is that it is a slow moving process. The full effect of the clause will be felt not tomorrow but in the years to come.
In London at the moment, the private rented sector is dropping like a stone. The right to buy exists in nearly all local authority dwellings. Now, the remaining providers of low-cost rented housing in the capital city are under threat. Where will anyone live in future who cannot afford to buy?
The Minister should remember the terrible example of Baron Haussman in Paris, who rebuilt that city under dictatorial powers in the 1860s. He created the wonderful boulevards and vistas that we all enjoy. However, in doing so he forced the poor of Paris to live further and further away, with grave economic and social disadvantages. It was the cause of all the troubles in 1871.
Slowly and inexorably, the amount of rented housing for people of modest means in central London will diminish because the risk is not confined to the relatively


small number of dwellings to which the right to buy applies. The effect of the measure will be far more widespread. The people who run organisations in a wholly voluntary capacity will ask themselves—indeed, they are asking it now—what is the point of continuing? The Government do not appear to want them, relations with their tenants will be made ever more difficult and there are better uses for the charitable funds. That is the real threat.
That point was put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in the debate on 13 December. He said:
It is a salutary warning to any individual or body that craves independence never to take money from the Government."— [Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 53.]
I leave it to others more qualified than myself to decide whether charities are being deprived of their funds. That point was argued exhaustively in Committee, and the position is no clearer now.
The argument in favour of sales is that the money from the sales of houses will be recycled to the Housing Corporation. That same argument was used for local authority housing. The fact remains that the Treasury collars the lot, apart from the discount for tenants. I simply cannot believe that the provision of housing will be improved—if only because of the enormous cost of buying a substitute dwelling—even if the money is recycled through the Housing Corporation. Frankly, I am concerned not with the financial implications, but with the principle. Government grants to voluntary bodies—for example, to a village hall committee or to a society dealing with drug addiction—are rightly irrevocable. There should be no difference for housing.
This aspect of the Bill is a curious measure for a Tory Government to propose. The more that I read the Committee proceedings, the more confused I become. At one point on 14 December, the Minister appeared to be invoking that great Tory, Mr. Aneurin Bevan. I hope that I am not doing the Minister an injustice, but he appeared to say to the Opposition, "Do not accuse me of dunning the charities when you see what Mr. Bevan did to the hospitals in 1946." He then added a gloss by quoting Mr. Arthur Skeffington on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I know that he was teasing—

Mr. Stanley: I was simply drawing attention to the inconsistent attitude of the Opposition in trying to masquerade as the defenders of charity in comparison with their history and their present commitment on private schools.

Mr. Benyon: The Minister has anticipated my next sentence. I knew that he was teasing. He was pointing out to the Opposition the inconsistencies in their attitude. But although we expect the Labour party to behave in that way, we do not expect the Conservative party to do so.
The amendment makes the position clear. If any charitable housing association accepts a housing association grant in future, it will be under no illusion about the conditions attached to it. It will accept it or not on that basis. That point was well put in a letter to The Times on Monday from a director from my housing trust. He said:
The Bill overrides one of the fundamental principles of charity law, that assets may only be sold where this is in the interests of the charity and then at the best obtainable price. Its implications extend to all charities, not only to housing charities.

I hope that the House will accept the amendment because it will prevent a most dangerous precedent from being created.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) because I cannot fault any of his words, other than when he was drawn into a rather lighthearted exchange about the different merits of the Labour and Conservative parties in their treatment of charitable organisations. I accept the spirit in which he made his point.
When I was a Minister I introduced the Housing Act 1974, which, with the support of both sides of the House—[Interruption.] I trust that the Minister will take this argument seriously, and not turn it into a clowning act. [Laughter.] These matters are not for laughing and joking about. They are serious. I am not being pompous.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, accused me of smiling during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). The only time that the right hon. Gentleman smiles is when he is speaking. He should develop his remarks rather than attack Conservative Members who are listening to his speech.

Mr. Freeson: I regret that I gave way to such an offensive intervention. I am making a serious point of dispute and argument not only in the House, but among all the charitable organisations in Britain. Conservative Members should not be brass-necked about the matter. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) if he wishes to make a serious intervention. If he does not, I shall continue with my remarks.
The Housing Act 1974, with the support of both sides of the House, provided the financial base for housing associations to build new homes and improve old houses in our crumbling inner cities on a scale never known before. It helped them to deal with the serious shortage of rented accommodation and the legacy of property in serious disrepair, especially—but not solely—in the inner city areas.
Housing associations were already active in those areas. In London, in addition to the Peabody Trust mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the Notting Hill Housing Trust was making inroads into some of the serious social problems in the neglected parts of the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It tackled the physical problems of decay. In Paddington, and in my area of Willesden, the Paddington Churches Housing Association was displacing the rottenness of the former Rachman empire and replacing it with decent homes at fair rents.
The Brent People's Housing Association was active in my area, and has since become one of the most dynamic associations in Britain. In Liverpool, the Merseyside Improved Houses Association was working in the inner city areas. In Yorkshire, the North British Housing Association was active, and is now also a dynamic housing association.
I have mentioned the work of only five charitable housing associations, but hundreds of others were working in some of the worst areas in towns and cities throughout Britain. Their contribution was inevitably limited because they were working under an inadequate financial system.
Charitable associations such as those I have mentioned, particularly the earlier ones, had to balance their books by raising their own money. For example, Notting Hill Housing Trust had a number of charity shops in London. The church-based housing associations received some support from the British Council of Churches. Many others received valuable support from voluntary welfare bodies associated with the housing associations themselves and, in more recent years, from organisations such as Shelter and the Housing Societies Charitable Trust. Others were helped—the help was patchily distributed across the country—by local councils such as my own in Willesden, now Brent. Some subsidy and grant was available for the improvement and conversion of old properties under the 1967 Act. Those forms of assistance were all useful, but they were inadequate.
6 pm
By 1974 it was clear to the House and to the country that more action and support were urgently needed. The Labour Government were supported by both sides of the House—indeed, we inherited certain measures which were in draft when the 1974 election took place—in their desire to back the voluntary commitment and, by giving it adequate financial support, to encourage it to become a genuine alternative to—not a replacement of—the existing choice between owner-occupation, council housing and the declining private sector. For years, the housing association movement had been described as the third arm in housing. I regarded that description as rhetorical because in those years the housing associations never provided more, at the most, than 9,000 to 11,000 dwellings a year, either by new build or by purchase and conversion.
As the Minister at that time, with the support of the House and of elected local government, I wanted to make the third arm a reality. Many in the housing association movement feared that by accepting Government grants on the scale proposed they would lose their independence. I speak with personal knowledge of the discussions and meetings because I was involved with representatives from all areas of the housing association movement. People were worried that if the associations took the money proposed in the 1974 legislation they would become an appendage of central Government, ordered to carry out its policy and follow its dictates. They feared that the movement would become a Government corporation. That language was actually used in some quarters.
It cost me, as Minister, some time and a great deal of effort to convince those who were so worried that their fear was unfounded, that the Government and Parliament were seeking partnership and persuasion on policy towards deprived areas and that I was a strong believer in a pluralist approach to housing, not just pragmatically but in principle. I had to persuade them that the Government believed that associations could be important in improving democratic control and innovation in housing, that there were no strings attached to the acceptance of housing association grant and that the Government wished not to take over but to enable housing associations to improve conditions for millions of people living in rotten housing and rotten physical environments. I sought to persuade them that the grants were given in good faith because the Government genuinely wanted a more vigorous attack on

some of the worst housing problems, with housing associations complementing the work of local authorities and being joined later, I hoped, by others in the building industry and the financial institutions.
The eventual acceptance of those assurances is now a matter of history and great things came out of it. The new system allowed housing associations to provide not 11,000 but 40,000 homes a year—good homes to rent—by the time I left office. If the financial resources had been made available, the total could have continued to rise to 70,000 dwellings per year. That is not guesswork. I speak advisedly when I say that a sevenfold increase could have been achieved, so effectively had the movement been able to organise itself on the basis of the new financial system under the 1974 Act.
Since then, housing associations have provided nearly a third of a million rented homes, most of them in or near the stress areas of our inner cities but many, too, in rural areas where the lack of rented accommodation has led to the decline of communities, as young people have drifted away in search of homes.
Back in 1974 many of the housing associations feared that the Labour Government would impose more controls and bureaucracy on the housing association movement as a consequence of giving grants and thus stifle the movement's initiative. It is ironic to find that, all these years later, more controls, bureaucracy and interference affecting both local authorities and housing associations have been introduced by the Conservative Government than ever there were under the Labour Government. It is the Conservatives who think of the housing associations as arms of the state. Indeed, that expression has even been used to me by people working in the Government's policy unit.
No one envisaged in 1974 that a future Conservative Government would use the fact that housing associations had accepted grants as a pretext to compel them to sell homes when it was very much against their interest and their housing judgment to do so. Furthermore, they will be increasingly required to repay the very grants that are the Government's justification for requiring them to sell their houses because public money has been placed in them.
Governments change, and so do policies, but Parliament needs to keep faith with people. When that faith is broken, not only are the Government of the day shamed but faith in parliamentary democracy is weakened, and one does not need to stress the dangers of that in these times. Of course, one Government or Parliament cannot fetter the action of another. Commitments entered into by one Administration are not always honoured by the next, but agreements freely struck and honourably carried out by both sides should be respected, especially when Parliament is one of the parties involved.

Mr. John Heddle: I am sure that the House is listening with great interest to the views that we know are sincerely held by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), but will he address himself to the role of the charitable housing associations? Does he agree that they are principally in business to provide homes to rent for the poorer sections of the community, the disadvantaged and those who genuinely need the right to rent? Does he further agree that the obligation to sell to those able to buy suggests that within the portfolio of the majority of charitable housing associations there are


tenants who should not qualify to remain in those properties and who by remaining there may deprive other more deserving people of the right to rent?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when this point was, to some extent, discussed by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but it was largely answered by him. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the record. Even if his latter point was right, it is not for Parliament or for Government to interfere with the detailed management affairs of charitable housing associations. If there is to be a challenge about their conduct as charitable organisations, proper procedures exist, which do not lie in this type of legislation. Such matters can be taken to court or to the Charity Commissioners, as happened in a case referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham.
With regard to the general policy of associations, successive Governments in co-operation, rightly, with local authorities have sought to widen their roles, particularly but not solely in the inner city areas. Therefore, it cannot be their role simply to put people into properties becuase they come to them at the lowest end of the housing market. By agreement across both sides of the House under the 1974 Act and, indeed, earlier, their role is wider—to contribute to the removal of decay and obsolescence in our inner city areas and elsewhere. Even if the two points made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) were accepted, they are in no way an answer to my point and to the points of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
When charitable housing associations accepted the grant system and individual grants from 1974 onwards, there was no question of that giving Government a right to take their assets from them. What has happened since is water under the bridge. I do not agree with the Government if they wish as from now to attach compulsory sales conditions to the acceptance of grants, but they are entitled with a parliamentary majority to seek to do so and it will be for housing associations then to decide whether they will accept grants involving such conditions—a decision that will be freely arrived at or rejected by them. That is acceptable in principle even if I were to disagree with the policy objective, about which I am not prepared to argue today. I did so generally on Second Reading. In such circumstances, Governments would be right in principle, even if I did not agree with the policy, to pursue their intentions in the Bill from now onwards, but not to pursue it in respect of the thousands of properties that have been built under the grant system as originally intended and accepted by both Governments and housing associations.

Mr. Chapman: I am following closely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I made a point in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman presumably supported about the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The Bill did not say "leaseholds entered into from now on" but referred to leaseholds that were already made. Surely that is the same principle. Therefore, the Minister has not taken an unprincipled point of view in presenting the Bill.

Mr. Freeson: When charitable associations—it could be any other charitable organisation—are being offered central or local government support or, indeed, any financial support, it is unprincipled if, subsequently, conditions are attached to the receipt of the grant. We are

not discussing the Leasehold Reform Act. That is a false analogy. I read the proceedings from Committee and I do not accept that that is a fair analogy. [Interruption.] I hope that the housing association representatives around the country will observe the Minister's constant reaction on this matter. The Minister thinks that this is a big joke.

Mr. Neil Thorne: rose—

Mr. Freeson: I can see the Minister. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) does not have that pleasure.

Mr. Thorne: There is a world of difference between the Minister's reaction to what the right hon. Member for Brent, East is saying and what the Minister actually feels. He does not have to feel amusement about charities just because he happens to find amusing the way the right hon. Member for Brent, East expresses himself. That is a different matter entirely.

Mr. Freeson: I will not bother with that intervention. What the Government are doing with regard to charitable organisations is wrong. I believe that when they consider it quietly away from the Chamber and Committee, they, too, will believe it to be wrong. Conservative Members may have similar thoughts. What is wrong about the Bill is that the Government are not entitled to rewrite history by attaching conditions that were never there in the first place. Governments and Parliaments should always be wary of retrospective legislation. It may be necessary sometimes—for example, when closing a loophole that destroys a legislative intention—but when there has been no attempt to evade the law or to profit improperly by it, retrospective action is wrong.
It is even more reprehensible in the present case because the organisations involved are charities, many of which stand to lose substantial assets if the Bill is enacted in its present form. We should be clear about what is being proposed, because some small charities could go out of business entirely as a result of clause 2. Under the right to buy the tenant is entitled to claim a discount of between one third and one half of the market value of the property that he or she occupies. The discount comes out of the increasing value of the property over the original cost of provision. Owner-occupiers and property companies quite rightly expect to profit from this appreciation in value. They regard it as part of their assets and no one seeks to deny it to them, but the Government seem to be denying the same consideration to charities by saying that the Government have a right to dispose of their assets. It does not rest there. When a housing charity is compelled to sell because of the right to buy, a mechanism is triggered by which the Government will recover the original housing association grant.
This will be done under a provision of the Housing Act 1974, which I introduced to prevent possible abuse by housing associations selling dwellings that were provided for rent. It enabled the Secretary of State to recover grant paid on any building that ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was intended—that is, providing a home for rent. It is a perversion of the intention of the provision to compel the associations to sell the property and then to say that, because they have sold the property, the grant must be recovered. There was never any intention to use the provision in the 1974 Act in that way. That, too, is, in my opinion, a breach of faith.
When the discount has been paid, the grant recovered and the mortgage redeemed, the charity concerned will in most instances have no capital receipt for the sale of the property. It has been argued that the sale of council houses gives local authorities capital receipts, which they can then invest in providing new homes. There are disputes about that but that will not apply to charities because it is the Exchequer that will enjoy the capital receipts and the charity will be left with next to nothing.
It is not good enough to say that there will be an addition made to the Housing Corporation's capital allocation to make this good. That is not an answer. I shall give two examples of how the provisions would work in practice. The Egerton Housing Association is a small charity that was formed by members of the parish council in a village near Ashford, Kent. It owns six houses. These properties were provided for young married couples working in the area. The provision was made because there was no other rented accommodation in the village. The association has served a useful purpose over the years by offering a first home to young couples, most of whom would move on after a few years when their finances enabled them to buy the larger homes that they would need in which to raise their families.
Even before the Bill is on the statute book, four of the six tenants have claimed the right to buy. It is likely that the other two will do so when the Bill is passed. The charity estimates that after giving the discount and repaying the grant and mortgage it will be left with only sufficient funds to pay the legal expenses of winding-up.
The association is run entirely by volunteers, and they are now feeling bitter about having spent so much time and energy over the years only to see their charity go out of existence as a result of an apparent whim, as they see it, of Government. Egerton is a small village that will shortly have no rented housing. I am sure that this will happen in a number of other rural areas where there is deprivation. There will be a similar though less disastrous effect in many city areas.
I shall present the House with another example. I hope that it will be accepted that these are not odd examples that do not repeat themselves elsewhere. I believe that they will repeat themselves throughout the country. The WPHT Housing Association is involved in a scheme with which I was closely concerned as a Minister some years ago. It operates in what is known as the Denbigh triangle area, in Pimlico, London. It became involved because of what was going on in the property market in that area in the early to middle 1970s. That was what is loosely called gentrification. There were other developments that were even worse from the point of view of tenants in the district.
The association was formed following publication of the Milner Holland report on the condition of rented housing in London. Sir Milner Holland and another member of his committee were founder members of the association. It has provided 350 flats for families and single people in the area. Its specific aim was to keep the local community intact by ensuring that rented accommodation continued to be available in an area where, increasingly, rented property was being bought up and sold out of rented use.
The triangle is a conservation area and the association's work has played a large part in restoring it to its former elegance. If clause 2 is allowed to stand as drafted, its

rented accommodation is likely to be sold into owner-occupation within a very short time—the House will be aware of the pressures of the market in that part of London—and there will again be a grave shortage of rented accommodation in the area. Sir Milner Holland and his colleagues might well wonder whether their time was well spent after all.
I spoke earlier about the Government breaking faith with the voluntary housing movement. I have in mind especially the 26,000 people—that is the Housing Corporation's estimate—who give freely of their time and effort to manage housing associations. By "freely" I mean generously and without pay. Without them charitable housing associations could not function and the third force in housing would cease to exist. I am not arguing that the Bill will cause the voluntary housing movement to come to an end. I hope and believe that that will not happen. Many of us inside the House and many others outside will ensure that it does not die. That is because we and they are committed to it. However, many of the 26,000 will not continue to give their time to act as the Government's unpaid estate agents. Those who remain on the committees will nurse a sense of betrayal. In many instances they are nursing that sense already. They will be much less willing to take at face value what any Government say in future. It is a poor reward for voluntary service. It is a poor response to the needs of the deprived in our inner city areas and areas of rural poverty.
The crisis that is looming in London and possibly in other areas is that of disrepair and a shortage of rented accommodation in inner city areas. In the borough in my constituency there are about 20,000 substandard dwellings requiring more action by the local authority and housing associations. There is underuse of habitable accommodation. There are old dwellings that could be converted if the resources and the effort were made available.
In the borough in my constituency there will be nearly 500 homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation tonight because neither housing associations nor the local council have the accommodation to house them. Many of these families are likely to be in rundown bed and breakfast hotels for upwards of a year. That is likely on the basis of cases with which I am now dealing. Do not tell me that I am being pompous when I complain about the removal of rented accommodation from the housing association market. Tell the people in the bed and breakfast places who is being pompous or brass-necked when the Government are insisting on the loss of rented accommodation at reasonable rents in such areas. We must provide more rented accommodation, not less, but the Bill seeks to concentrate on reducing the size of the rented stock in the very areas in which we need to increase it.
I ask the Government to consider the arguments that have been advanced on Second Reading, in Committee and tonight and to think again. If they are not prepared to do so, let there be a majority in the other place to put the Government in their place on this issue. Let us at least remove the retrospective elements in the Bill. At the very least there should be no retrospective action. Let us at least save the existing rented accommodation, even if the Government insist on a compulsory sales policy for future dwellings. In justice and fairness, I ask Conservative Members, whatever their differences with us may be, individually or collectively, not to allow the proposed retrospective action to take place, to the harm of those who need the sort of accommodation to which I have referred.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment, especially as my amendment, No. 62, is coupled with it. My amendment seeks to widen the powers that the Government seek to provide, because I believe that the Government's proposals do not go far enough. I have a non-financial interest to declare in two or three housing associations, including the Greater London secondary housing association, with which I am delighted to be associated.
I listened with care and sympathy to the persuasive arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I also listened with great attention and respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) who has considerable experience and knowledge in housing. However, I do not agree with him in several respects. I do not agree that charities should be in the business of letting accommodation. That is not a responsibility of charities. If a charity happens to have responsibility for housing as part of its duties, so be it, but I do not think it should be primarily in that business.
Charities should have aims and those aims should be clear. They should try to help various groups of people. In certain circumstances they try to help the aged and infirm. As I understand it, those groups will not be affected by the Government's proposal. It is essential that accommodation should be kept available for them.
Some housing associations which are either charities or have charitable status have moved into the business of general housing. I cannot see why people who have helped housing associations take on this role and who have had the pleasure of seeing people without adequate housing being housed properly with Government aid should object to those people taking the further step of becoming owner-occupiers in their own right. I should have thought that a charitable housing association would have welcomed the opportunity that the proposal gives to those people whom it wishes to help.
I have had the pleasure of assisting certain co-ownership housing societies and associations. Without any profit motive, large groups of people have offered their services to help others who do not have adequate accommodation to get on the first rung of the property-owning ladder. I do not believe that charities will withdraw from that work. I am a member of the Greater London secondary housing association, which has adapted its role specifically to assist and advise people who set out to accommodate themselves adequately and help them in the first years of running such an enterprise.
We all have great affection for charities. This is something of a British tradition. However, all charities are not necessarily in the same group. The Attorney-General is taking issue with the Charity Commissioners about certain charities because Members on both sides of the House do not believe that they should be classified as charities, and that is not an isolated case.
I must take some responsibility for the introduction of the Government's proposals because one of my Adjournment debates drew the Minister's attention to the plight of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Reid of 135 Thorold road, Ilford, who wished to buy their house but were unable to do so. This, I believe, helped to spark off the proposals, which I am pleased the Minister has introduced. For Mr. and Mrs. Reid, unfortunately, the proposal does not go far enough.
Mr. and Mrs. Reid were on the Greater London council housing waiting list in 1971. They were offered accommodation by Trinity Housing Association Ltd. as an alternative to council accommodation. They accepted in good faith what they were offered, believing that it was financed from public resources, which it was. Subsequently, however, they were surprised to learn, from an article in the Ilford Recorder of 8 September 1977:
Government officials are probing a Redbridge-based housing association following concern over the group's managment.
The inquiry is into the non-profit-making Trinity Housing Association who find accommodation for the homeless.
It is being carried out by the Government's Housing Corporation who supervise and finance all similar organisations.
The association, formed seven years ago by director Mr. Jim Alexander, control 553 homes and have an annual turn-over of two million pounds.
In a statement issued this week, the Housing Corporation said: 'Mr. Alexander has been threatened with suspension from the Housing Corporation under the terms of the 1974 Housing Act, section 19, which governs housing associations.
'This gives the corporation the power to conduct inquiries into the management of associations.
'An inquiry is being conducted at this moment following concern being expressed at the management of the Trinity Housing Association.
'Whatever happens as a result of the inquiry will not affect the security of tenure of the residents placed by Trinity.'
The Act also gives the corporation the right to suspend any committee member or staff member of a housing association if the corporation conclude there has been misconduct of mismanagement.
That describes what happened in that case. This is a society which was established under the charitable housing rules. It would come within the Minister's proposal. My only regret is that the proposal does not apply to all funds that have been made available. In that case the resources were provided by the Greater London council and the local London borough council. In my view, there is no difference between that and funds provided by central Government. So there is no reason why my constituents and people in similar circumstances should not be given the opportunity to own their property on exactly the same basis as a council tenant. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will take this into account and see what he can do to help.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I start by declaring an interest as a founder member of the Isle of Wight housing association, although I am not active in its management today. Not for the first time I find myself wanting to support the amendment proposed so ably by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I spoke on Second Reading and I do not wish to go over the ground again.

Mr. Graham: A very good speech it was.

Mr. Ross: Thank you very much.
As I have said, I was associated with the formation of a charitable housing association which now owns and manages over 300 properties in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Buckingham quoted from a letter which appeared recently in The Times from the manager of the Peabody Trust. I wish to go back to The Times of 9 December last and quote an extract from a letter from Bishop Ellison and others because it encapsulates what I should like to say. According to the letter, the proposal to give the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations who have been housed with the aid of housing association grants since 1974


would confer a benefit on a fortunate tenant of today, at the expense of tomorrow's homeless and disadvantaged. It cuts across the obligations and responsibilities which charities have in perpetuity. It undermines the work of those who have contributed many years of personal and voluntary service to providing homes to rent for those with lower incomes.
The housing association in my constituency was set up in 1973 because we were concerned that young people in particular, but also all age groups, were being priced out of the market. There was no hope in hell of them getting a home to rent or to buy at a reasonable price. The same applies today.
Incidentally, the Government are completely inconsistent. The Minister should have a word with the Home Office because its attitude to surplus prison officer housing is not nearly so generous as that of the Department of the Environment. When there is surplus prison officer housing on the island, the Home Office will not make it available to local authorities which are in great trouble with long waiting lists. Also, when the Home Office is prepared to sell off houses to tenants, there is no discount. The prices are far above sitting tenant prices. I have just discovered in a roundabout way today that the Home Office might assist by giving an interest-free loan of £3,000; that has not been made public yet.
Housing in London is in crisis and it will get worse. I do not believe that the Government recognise what is happening in Kensington and Westminster where many hon. Members live. Too often, blocks of flats have been sold off to the tenants on long leases. The tenants have been enticed to buy at attractive prices. One does not know who the hell the owner is. Often, it is a faceless landlord with a company registered in the Channel Islands. If one turns down an offer to purchase, one receives every two years a hugely increased rent demand. In the end, many people conclude that this is a hopeless way to proceed, that they cannot go on arguing before the rent officer and that they will purchase.
As soon as one purchases the property, one receives a dramatically increased demand for services. On an ordinary one-bedroomed flat, the charge for services can amount to £1,000 a year. It takes months if not years to extract statistics from inefficient managing agents. I speak as a chartered surveyor. I am ashamed of many of the managing agents of London blocks of flats. It is appalling trying to get details from them. One never succeeds in arranging a proper meeting of long leaseholders who are entitled to hold such meetings in order to have facts and figures given to them. So it goes on. One suddenly finds that there are plans to decorate the outside of the flat and that £80,000 is required from the tenants. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Some people with whom I share a block of flats are driven to tears and great distress. There is no way that they can continue to meet these enormous demands if the Government intend to diminish, or to wipe out completely, the supply of charitable housing to let in the metropolis. The lives of those people will become more complicated and worrisome. That is not the right way to proceed. The matter cannot be left to the House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords at the moment tends to be the conscience of the nation. So rigid are the party divisions in this place that, however strong the argument from the Opposition Benches—for instance, on school transport—it is the Duke of Norfolk who has to change the

Government's mind. It is possible that the bishops will have a go. I hope to God they do. I wish them the best of luck.
Why should this be necessary? Why is the hon. Member for Buckingham apparently one of the few supporters on the Conservative Benches of what is proposed? It was the same situation three or four years ago. Most Government Members know that they do not like the provisions in the Bill. I find it immoral. It should not be left to the other place to put the matter right. I hope that there are Conservative Members who will have the guts to vote with the hon. Member for Buckingham. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think it appropriate if I do not follow directly the arguments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I should, however, like to take up some remarks of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). Before referring to his notes and giving a good and lengthy background to housing association grants, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of clowning around in Standing Committee. I regard that as an unworthy assertion. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to consider withdrawing it, privately if not in public. If he examines the issues that I have raised in Committee he will find, I suspect, that almost every one is an issue with which he would agree. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for over half an hour on charitable housing associations. I intend to speak for about seven minutes. If he wishes to intervene, I shall willingly give way.

Mr. Freeson: I use my phrases carefully. They are not normally put in such terms. However the hon. Gentleman's behaviour even while his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) was speaking and his behaviour in Committee, as I read the record, led me to the conclusion that I made. I stand by it.

Mr. Bottomley: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Standing Committee debates. If he can raise any example of what he regards as clowning on my part and feels he can substantiate it, I suggest that he mentions it in public rather than make unsubstantiated allegations in the way that he did both to me and to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
6.45 pm
I wish to discuss whether it is appropriate for tenants of charitable housing associations to be given the right to buy. It seems to me that some information is missing and that some points have not been made. No one can accuse me of supporting whatever the Government favour. That is not my history or my style. I approach this issue with a fairly open mind. I have listened to the debate. I have read many of the submissions by charitable housing associations. I conclude that what the Government propose is reasonable and should be supported.
One large housing association stated that it had bought 5,000 homes at roughly 50 per cent. of empty value with tenants in them. If housing associations can buy at 50 per cent. discount, it is reasonable that they should sell at 50 per cent. discount. Some argue that people involved as volunteers in charitable housing associations have shown that they are willing to provide voluntary direction to shared ownership and opportunities for tenants to buy. No question of principle arises when those volunteers provide the same sort of home to tenants but decide beforehand to


allocate some to tenants who will be able to buy part or all of the property and some to others who will not be able to buy. It has not been proved that those involved in voluntary housing are opposed to the right to buy. By their own admission, many are willing to become involved in other provisions.

Mr. Freeson: There is surely a world of difference between an organisation that provides housing with a view to negotiating voluntarily different tenure arrangements with its tenants and the position of that organisation when it is compelled to do what it judges to be wrong in terms of housing policy, reinforced by a compulsion put upon it to deal with houses provided before the Bill in the same way.

Mr. Bottomley: That is a valid question, with which I wish to deal. Compulsion is a subsidiary issue. There is, I believe, common agreement that the same people are involved in providing two different sorts of prospective tenure. All hon. Members know that family circumstances change. All of us know that people helped by charitable housing associations may find that their circumstances continue as they were when they first became tenants. The decision to buy privately or to take up the right-to-buy option will therefore not arise. Most estimates that I have seen show that relatively few tenants of housing associations would be able to take up the right-to-buy option in any event. However, hon. Members also know that some people at the bottom of the housing pile find that their circumstances change. Some decide to buy privately. Others will have the opportunity to buy at a discount. We are therefore extending help to those in the middle of the housing association tenant spectrum.
It is also known that many people who believed that they would have the opportunity to enter into shared ownership and to buy through the new schemes of tenure find that their circumstances change. They find that they need to remain tenants for a long time, if not for ever. I do not believe that hon. Members or those involved in the management of housing associations are in a position to say that family A will at some stage be able to buy and that family B will not be able to buy. However, unless we provide a general right to buy, we are in trouble. We are trying to make a paternalistic and elitist forecast that we are not in a position to make.
There is the question of stocks and flows. The right hon. Member for Brent, East did not talk about the Housing Corporation funds available this year. I have given advice to housing associations and to the federation. They would have been far wiser to pay attention to the evidence of one housing association of which I made inquiries and which said that with new housing association grants it could add about 20 per cent. a year to its stock of homes. When I asked what proportion of homes would be either "sterilised"—people staying on who would not otherwise do so—or bought by tenants and whether it would amount to 20 per cent., I was told that the figure would be much lower.
If, therefore, there is an opportunity to add 20 per cent. a year to the stock of homes managed by a housing association and if it is likely to lose perhaps 5 per cent. of what it has created over the last eight years, it seems to me that from the point of view of the aims of the housing association, providing homes for those who would not otherwise have them, what the Government propose is a good deal.
What the National Federation of Housing Associations should have done was tell the Government that it could see what the Government were trying to achieve, that it would leave anomalies—for example, the pre- and post-1974 houses where some charitable money was involved—but that it should be possible to come to an agreement with the Government for long-term, increased funding for housing associations so that they would be left with more homes to let, so that more people, finding their circumstances changed, would be able to buy and so that a long-term settlement could be achieved.
It has not happened. I hope it will. I hope that the housing associations will be more positive and constructive. They would be very wise to consider selling pre-1974 homes even though tenants will not have the right to buy, because unless they do that they will face the most invidious choices. It is possible to reach common ground so that the Government achieve what they want as well as the housing associations being enabled to go on doing their very valuable work. All-out opposition is wrong because there is only one logical consequence with a Government who believe that tenants should be able to get homes when they need them and to buy when they want. The Government would bring to an end HAG. There would be no more housing corporation grants and loans because they would be provided only to local authorities where the right to buy was established. That would be a retrograde step for housing associations. The increase in their supply of homes since 1974 has been invaluable. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing that forward. I wish that he would rest on his laurels there and not oppose the sensible measures in this Bill.

Mr. Robert Parry: In view of the time, I will be very brief. I realise that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate and that the Front Bench will begin winding-up at half-past seven. I am opposed to this Bill if it goes through unamended. Liverpool is the only city in the United Kingdom controlled by the Liberals in coalition with the Tories. The present critical housing situation in Liverpool will be further aggravated if this Bill becomes law. In the past few years not one unit of accommodation has been built by the local authority for rent. This is an absolute disgrace, bearing in mind the major problems of Liverpool, particularly from the point of view of people or the housing list and on the transfer list, especially the elderly, sick and disabled, who badly need transfers arid who, under the present system and administration, are not given them.
It is obvious that this is the result of deliberate, doctrinaire Liberal policy and attitudes towards council tenants and the whole principle of council house building. Several years ago, Liverpool had one of the lowest rent levels in the country. Now, under Liberalism, we are top of the league, like our football team. The increase in rents passed by Liberal and Tory councillors in coalition gives an indication of their attitude. For example, in 1979 the average rent of a one-bedroomed flat, excluding rates and water rate, was £6·70; in April 1982 it was £15·13. The rent of a three-bedroomed house was £8·49 in 1979 and £21·51 in 1982. The rent of a three-bedroomed flat in 1979 was £8·49 and in 1982 was £18·12. These are only average figures. I have spent most of my life in a council flat and when I moved out of my three-bedroomed multi-storey flat a few weeks ago I was paying rent of nearly £30 a week.
Great play was made of the fact that I lived in a council flat by the present leader of the Liverpool city council, Sir Trefor Jones, who lives in a salubrious area of Liverpool in a house worth £80,000 or £90,000. He was also supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton).
The sale of council homes is depleting the best of our stock. All the best houses in Liverpool are being sold. It is interesting to note that over the past three years only one flat in the whole of Liverpool has been sold. These sales are affecting the people who want to get out of the pre-war tenement flats and into decent accommodation. I am concerned about the old, the handicapped and the sick. I received a request from a very old lady whom I have known for most of my life, Mrs. Murphy, 83 years of age, who has recently been discharged from hospital after a serious illness. She is living on the fifth floor of a pre-war tenement block. Her son has been very ill. I approached the housing department to see whether this poor lady could be removed from the tenement and given a decent house or flat but was told that under the present system there is no chance and that she must stay where she is.
I am certain that there are people living in high-rise flats whose lives could be shortened or who are at risk because they are not rehoused, even though they have been given priority by the medical officer of health.
It is a great pity that the people of Darlington who live in rented accommodation or who are on housing waiting lists are not aware of the policies of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. I am quite certain that when they vote tomorrow the SDP/Liberal alliance will be bottom of the list.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has done an important service in moving the amendment. I want to concentrate my comments on the smaller charitable housing associations. I understand that there are 221 housing associations which provide special needs accommodation. Of that 221, 150 are charitable and 71 are non-charitable. Of the 221, 70 have fewer than 100 units and more than half of the 70 are operating exclusively in the area of special needs. Some of them are exempt from the right to buy under this Bill. There is a strong case for exempting this group completely.
Small associations often rely solely on voluntary efforts. I have no doubt that if this Bill were to be implemented exactly as it stands this voluntary effort could be seriously affected. Small associations are vulnerable financially and have very few professional administrative resources. Administrative work plays a part in all these associations and if they are going to be involved in what will often be very complex matters concerning the sale of various properties within the associations it will be time-consuming and expensive and will divert them from their true aim of providing accommodation to meet very special needs and requirements. Meeting some of those needs and requirements would help those recovering from alcoholism, drug problems and mental illnesses.
7 pm
Another aspect that I hope the Minister will consider carefully is that of donations. The British are a generous people. In towns such as Brighton—the Brighton housing trust is a typical example—substantial donations are made

by people who know that they are giving help to sections of the community that need special assistance, generosity and compassion in respect of the problems that they face. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will have a serious effect on those who may be prepared to continue making generous donations to charitable housing associations.
The House may ask why I chose the figure of 100, and what will happen to the association that has slightly more than 100 dwellings. That can easily be sorted out. If the figure fluctuates, such a suggestion would operate automatically from the date that the Bill became an Act—in other words, it could then be established whether the association had fewer than 100 or more than 100 dwellings. There must be a cut-off point, which to some extent must be arbitrary.
Many of the associations about which I am talking will never exceed the limit of 100. Were they to do so, they would not be able to fulfil the role that they are playing so effectively at present. Those that did exceed the limit would inevitably become more financially stable and viable.
I hope that the Minister will look closely at this area of charitable housing trusts. If he will concede the spirit of my comments, I shall be delighted to leave it to him to arrange for the appropriate amendment to be moved in another place. The arguments that have been presented today to help this group of charitable housing trusts are based on common sense and justice, not only in respect of those who benefit from such associations, but in respect of those who give so generously of their time and money.

Mr. Cartwright: In his skilful moving of the amendment, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) rightly drew attention to the extraordinary situation in which the Conservative party—traditionally the party that has championed charitable activities against state provision—should in this part of the Bill be seeking to undermine the position of charitable housing associations. That is indeed strange.
All of us who served on the Committee were left in no doubt at all about the attitude of the associations. We were deluged with letters from housing associations all over the country, clearly stating the disincentive effect of this part of the Bill.
I quote briefly from the Salvation Army housing association. This was typical of the reaction that we received. The chairman of that association wrote:
My Association is actively considering branching out to provide, for example, permanent housing for resettled hostel residents and for poorer young couples entering their first married homes.
All of us would regard that as a worthy objective. The letter continued:
The Housing and Building Control Bill as presently drafted will almost certainly bring to an end these plans for new initiatives in our future work.
The chairman points out that hon. Members
should be aware of this discouraging effect of the Bill".
He summed up:
We do not see it as our function to provide homes for sale at discount prices.
That was the reaction of many charitable housing associations.
It is fair to say, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, that many housing associations have responded to the Government's wish to see them play a role in developing shared ownership,


building for sale and so on. Many have set up sister associations to fulfil that part of the Government's housing policy. In meeting that part of the Government's objective, they thought that as a quid pro quo they would be left in peace to pursue their charitable objectives of providing housing for those in most need. They are angry and discouraged to find that that is not the case.
There is tremendous agreement among all parties in the House that there should be more choice in housing, particularly in rented housing. The polarisation between owner-occupation and council renting is not encouraging for housing in this country. The housing associations in general, and the charitable housing associations in particular, can play an important part in providing low-cost rented housing as an alternative to local authority housing schemes.
In central London, the charitable activities about which we are talking often provide islands of reasonable low-cost rental in a sea of expensive housing. That is vital, not just in housing terms but in terms of the running of the city. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I represent what is virtually the London new town of Thamesmead. I see the harm that is done when people are taken from the centre of our city, carted out to the edges and put in housing that is miles away from their jobs. If we want essential services carried out in the centre of the city, we must provide low-cost housing to enable people to live near the essential jobs that they do.
I pay tribute to a number of charitable housing associations which over the years have provided just that sort of low-cost housing. However, they will now find that tenants, if they can afford to buy at generous discounts, will seek the capital gain that such a purchase will offer them.
The major case for extending the right to buy—it was fairly made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West—is that it provides fairness among tenants. But that objective is not met in the Bill, because charitable housing association tenants whose homes were not built with housing association grants do not get the right to buy. Consequently, there could well be tenants living virtually side by side, some having the right to buy and the others not. Anomalies will still exist if the Bill is enacted as currently drafted.
The most powerful argument against the clause as it now stands is contained in the amendment. I well understand the right of Government to say, "We have put Government money into a particular project and we have the right to apply strings." However, I do not accept that a Government have the right years later to say, "You accepted our money on a perfectly open, free and fair basis all those years ago, we have now decided retrospectively that we will apply strings to the help that you accepted freely." That point is brought out clearly in the letter that we all received from the Salvation Army housing association, which asked:
What conditions will be attached tomorrow to assistance received in good faith from government today?".
That is the most important part of this argument. That is why I welcome the amendment so much, and why I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Chapman: I note the wish of the House for brief contributions to this important debate on the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon).
At the outset, I feel impelled to make two personal observations. First, I pay tribute here and now to the significant contribution to the Committee debates made by all hon. Members who served on that Committee, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I shall shortly return to a telling point that he made.
Secondly, it is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to label most Conservative Back Benchers as acting as lobby fodder on this issue in support of the Government. It is precisely because distinguished people such as Bishop Ellison have expressed disquiet about what the Government are doing, and because we have received so much correspondence from chairmen and other people who are involved with the charitable housing associations, that I for one have agonised over the matter before deciding to support the Government.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If, as I hope, the bishops and, say, some Tory peers in the other place throw out the clause, support the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), and change the clause as drafted, will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept that decision, or will he want it to be restored to its original position when it comes back to this House? That has happened time after time. The latest example is the Water Bill and the reference to the ombudsman. That has now been accepted by the Government in the other place, although it was resisted throughout in this House.

Mr. Chapman: With respect, I can only come to my own conclusion, and my conclusion is to support the Government, on balance, on this clause. If bishops in the other place tend not to support the Government, apart from making the polemic remark that it proves that it is not necessarily the Conservatives who have a majority in the other end of this Palace, may I say that they are acting independently, and I can only take my position after what happens there.
We have had contributions from four political parties in this debate so far. I pay tribute to all those contributors who are acknowledged experts on these matters in this place, and I shall add my pennyworth. I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who is associated with the Peabody Trust, a most distinguished organisation. However, the other side of the argument should be put, and it involves the rights of tenants. One cannot be dogmatic, and one has to generalise. I strongly believe that in many cases it is merely a matter of chance whether the tenant was housed by a local authority or by a charitable housing association. Therefore, the rights of tenants should be given some importance. I know from my mailbag that some tenants of some charitable housing associations felt aggrieved that they were excluded from the provisions of the 1980 Act.
In understanding and reaching a conclusion on this matter, we have to get the matter into balance. The best information that I have is that about 80,000 tenants will come within the provisions of this part of the Bill, out of the 300,000 tenants of charitable housing associations. It is a relatively small proportion. Based on the experience of the right-to-buy provisions in the 1980 Act, it appears


that about one in 10 of the 80,000 out of 300,000 tenants will exercise their right to buy. So we are talking about perhaps 3 per cent. of tenants in all charitable housing associations.

Mr. W. Benyon: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend is saying, because I read his speech in Committee. He coined the slogan "equal rights for tenants". However, they are not equal. All the people who are housed, for instance, by my trust realise that they are being housed by the Peabody Trust. They had no idea whether they were in this section or that section. Now one tenant will get the right to buy, and another one will not have that right. So to say that equal rights apply to all tenants is nonsense.

Mr. Chapman: I accept that in part. I can only generalise in the time that is available. There will still be unfairness, but we have to strike a balance. No one is saying that it is absolutely right to take one course and quite wrong to take another. Like most political decisions, it is a question of balance.
I understand, of course, that the Peabody Trust and other charitable housing associations have housed people who are in the greatest need. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) told us about specific groups of people. Surely it is all the more likely that an even smaller percentage of those people will wish to exercise their right to buy under this Bill. So whereas 3 per cent. overall will take up the offer—I generalise, of course—a much smaller proportion may do so in some of the properties that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and others described.
I want to comment briefly on the Denbigh triangle which was quite properly mentioned by the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). Again, I have to generalise. It is because it is a prime site in Pimlico, housing people in great need, that a smaller proportion of people will exercise their right to buy. A smaller proportion will exercise their right to buy because, even with the discount that is available, they will have to pay more than they would on a more conventional site. I do not say that that is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but it is a factor that should be taken into consideration.
There is some rough justice in what my right hon. Friend proposes in this clause for those involved in the management of charitable housing associations. I do not try to escape that conclusion. However, until this Bill was introduced, and unless it is implemented, there has been even rougher injustice for some tenants. The Bill does not remove all the injustice for all the tenants, but it goes perhaps a small way towards doing so. A balance has to be struck, and I sincerely believe that the Government have made a fair decision.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief. I want to speak in support of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon). I do not believe that the issue is whether to buy or sell. The amendment is not about that. It is about something else. The amendment is about having good faith with institutions, and especially with charitable institutions, in making a grant or giving them the right to borrow. It is a matter of good faith that they can do that, and they will be allowed to manage their own property. It

is a matter of good faith that they can put people into houses, as they think necessary. That is the vital issue of the amendment.
The hon. Member for Buckingham is saying "All right, let's play the game. Let's play cricket, and do it fairly. Let's put a date on." If any charitable society comes to the Government for grants or to borrow money, that can be written into the legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. I would call that typically British. There is nothing wrong in saying "We shall pass a law, and it will come into operation in a few days' time." I do not subscribe to passing laws in retrospect. I do not care if right hon. or hon. Members say that other Governments have done that. That is no excuse. One bad thing does not excuse another bad thing. The vital issue is "Do you have faith in your Government, or do you have to be wary of individuals who come bearing gifts?"
Many individuals will leave the charitable associations and no one has condemned them. Everybody has said what good work they have done. I have not had much contact with them because the houses in my constituency belong to the local authority. My constituency is in the country, where there are better opportunities. The Bill will turn people away and only the Government will be to blame. The Government have loaned the charitable associations money which they accepted and they now want to make them sell their assets. For a British Government that is unpalatable.
If the amendment is not accepted it will be immoral. No conditions were attached when charities were given the money and yet now, eight or 10 years later, they are told that conditions will be imposed. No one can accept that; it is wrong. Charities have built houses for those in need and in doing so they have provided a good service. Many people in the inner cities were proud to have such houses, where they could lay their heads, and live in reasonable conditions. The Government are now telling the charities that, because they built houses for those in need to rent and because some of those who lived in that accommodation got a little richer, they must sell those houses. That is the crux of the matter. Charities that have worked hard for the lower income groups are, as they say in Yorkshire, being given a kick in the teeth for doing so. That is not playing the game.
I hope that the clause will not be rejected in the other place. I hope that there are sufficient hon. Members to go through the right Lobby tonight—the Lobby in which God will be on their side when they vote for the amendment and against this terrible piece of legislation.

Mr. Litherland: The Bill is a series of amendments to the Housing Act 1980. Amendment No. 62 is a further attack on the public sector. It promotes the Government's policy of selling off housing that has any public money in it at all. Now, without consultation, the Government are imposing conditions on grant arrangements that were entered into in good faith many years ago by charitable trusts. Those trusts are now being destroyed merely to extend the dogma of the right to buy.
Members of the Committee have received correspondence saying that the Government's intrusion was an attack on long-established principles of charity law. Organisations such as the Guinness Trust find the measures offensive and would never have accepted grants if they had had any idea that one day a dictatorial Government would force them to sell their houses. We


have heard from housing trusts and associations that were set up with the sole intention of providing homes in areas of acute housing stress for the needy. Our correspondence has been large and varied, submitting different fears of what would happen were the Bill to become an Act. The Guinness Trust has been in existence for 100 years, providing 1,000 dwellings per year to the smallest charities.
In my area, the Salford Community Housing Association, the Manchester Methodist Housing Association and the Family Housing Association shout as one voice that the Bill is irresponsible and will cause them to abdicate their obligations to families on the waiting lists who are often living in the most appalling conditions.
What kind of tenants would the Salford Community Housing Association be renting to? They are mainly sitting tenants, living in substandard property acquired from private landlords who have not maintained the property. There are social service referrals, families suffering from overcrowding and family breakdown, elderly and single persons, single parent families, and so on. They normally have low incomes and a high housing need. The majority of the tenants taken in by that association have no income other than pensions, unemployment or supplementary benefit from the Department of Health and Social Security.
This is the real world, full of real people in real housing need. It is those people who will be deprived. Associations such as the Salford Community Housing Association and the Manchester Methodist Housing Association provide much-needed rented accommodation, especially in the inner city areas. They will have their housing stock diminished. Their role is not to sell houses; they see their role as providers of accommodation for those in greatest need.
Many of those associations have voluntary workers and it follows that they will be reluctant to give up their spare time if the aims of the associations are changed by Government diktat. The Government are taking away their independence and responsibilities. They have done it by the sale of council housing and this is the next step in the process of privatisation. Those associations are adamant in their rejection of all proposals to make the right to buy mandatory rather than voluntary. They all believe that compulsory sales would be at a substantial cost to the Government and the taxpayer. Disposal, whether at discount or not, represents the loss of an asset.
In a document on the sales of charity land the Charity Commission for England and Wales said:
Trustees are bound in any dealing with charity properties to give primary consideration to the interests of the charity … If trustees decide to sell, they are under a legal obligation to secure the most advantageous terms for the charity.
As I said in Committee, to sell houses while there is such a great need is not only immoral; it is a social evil.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I shall not rehearse the arguments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), but I support all that he said. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that the charity commissioners will accept the hon. Gentleman's point and that any trustees will be absolved of their responsibilities and their trusteeship by following the instructions in clause 2.
I have never known a Bill that has so few supporters. It has been opposed by nearly all hon. Members. The greatest theme of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet

(Mr. Chapman) was that few people will use it, so why worry? It is argued that it is rough justice. One area in which the Government could exercise rough justice is in the case of Crown estate tenants. Why are they not being encouraged to buy houses? They are a classic example of people using public funds. Any profit goes to the Treasury and any loss is paid for by the Treasury. Yet the Government do not suggest that there should be rough justice for the Crown tenants. Instead, they pick upon the housing associations that in many ways they spawned in 1968. At that time, they grew like Topsy. Now the Government say that they have played the role that was intended for them; they have fulfilled their role between the local authority and the private market.
If the housing associations had known that they would be forced to sell their property subsequently, they would never have divided their houses in the way that they have. The silly situation arises that where they have provided two modern flats in a house one tenant will opt to buy while the other tenant will not. Consequently the management costs of running the houses will be enormous. Yet the housing association has to run them on a shoestring anyway because it has no great funds to do otherwise. The Minister has not answered that point, but he must. How can he claim that he wants efficiency and effective housing management in local government when, if the clause is successful, he will be forcing the housing associations to use the most inefficient of all methods, so that he can have his whim on "rough justice"? There have been no straightforward answers from the Government as to why they want clause 2. I suggest that the Minister, on reflection, withdraws his clause.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: This has been a most important debate. It is important for housing because clause 2 will reduce the supply of rented accommodation. It is also important for charities generally, not just housing charities. The Bill, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, changes the charity law, although it is a housing Bill.
The amendment attempts to make the legislation retrospective. As several hon. Members have said, when the housing association grants first became available, there was no suggestion that these consequences would follow and many housing associations and housing charities would not have applied for such grants had they thought that such strings would be attached at a later date.
In Committee, we pointed out the important fact that other public moneys can go towards housing improvements without any such strings being attached. Improvement grants can be paid to private landlords. That is public money going to improve housing in a way that is comparable to the way that many housing associations operate. However, the same strings are not attached in the former case and the right to buy does not exist.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has been closely associated with housing charities for many years. He said that in 1974 the members of the present Government supported the concept of housing association grants being made available to housing associations for the improvement of properties and for new building. That attitude of the Government was reinforced in 1980 when the present Minister was steering the Housing Act 1980 through Committee. He said that the


Government had made an essential distinction. His conclusion was that the right to buy should be extended further to the
housing association sector who could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of public sector tenants. We take the view that that should not be extended if it conflicts with charitable law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 1980; c. 15.]
The Bill conflicts with charity law and so the Minister will change charity law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) explained the consequences that might arise for trustees of housing charities who allowed assets to be disposed of at less than the best possible price. We discussed in Committee the problems for charities that have a legal obligation to secure the most advantageous terms should any sale or disposal of the assets take place. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, the National Federation of Housing Associations wrote to the Solicitor-General for his advice and interpretation of the rules on charities. I share the concern of the hon. Member that there is no Law Officer present to give advice this evening. We asked for that in Committee but the Government refused to provide us with direct advice.
The hon. Member for Buckingham quoted the part of the reply to the national association from the Solicitor-General that dealt with the "necessitous poor". The implications of that were much wider than just this particular clause and the right-to-buy provisions. The implications behind the reply cover those people in housing charity accommodation who do not want to exercise the right to buy because it implies or threatens, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) did, that if people in charitable accommodation became too prosperous they should be forced to move out and go to live elsewhere. The difficult problem that has not been covered in the Solicitor-General's advice and in the examples given by the Minister in Committee, and which the hon. Member for Buckingham tried to raise, is the dilemma facing housing charities should their tenants become more prosperous than at the time of the allocation.
It is obvious, according to their rules as well as anybody else's, that charities must consider the circumstances of their tenants at the time of letting. They must be old people, the poor or those suffering from some handicap. However, circumstances can change. Those with lower incomes may improve their earnings. A divorced woman with children may marry and the whole family may continue to live in the accommodation. People who have been in psychiatric hospitals and receiving treatment, and who have been given housing on that basis, may recover and be debarred according to the Minister's new rule.
At the moment, if somebody's financial circumstances improve after they have been given accommodation in a charitable housing property, it is natural for them to move into owner occupation because there are substantial financial advantages in becoming an owner-occupier. However, if the Bill becomes law these people will be well advised to stay put and claim the very high discount that will be available under clause 2 and which they will be able to obtain only if they purchase the house that they are renting at the time. The Government are giving a financial incentive to people to buy their charitable home rather than moving into the ordinary owner-occupied sector. That will

have serious consequences on the supply of rented accommodation, which, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, is scarce and much needed.
I am concerned about the misleading advice given by the Solicitor-General in the letter—it may be that he did not fully understand the circumstances—about the discount and whether there is a problem with the disposal of assets of the charity in regard to the price that will be obtained by the charity once the discount is given and the debts of the charity on that property are repaid. The Solicitor-General says that there is no problem because if anybody loses because of the discount it will be not the charity but the Government. However, he fails to take into account the real value of the property at the time of the sale.
It is true that the housing charity may recover the price that it has had to pay to have the property built, but that may be nothing like the real value of the property that is being disposed of. For example, if a property had been built at a cost of £12,000, but was not worth £18,000, the housing association would be guaranteed only the £12,000 that it cost it to build the property in the first place. Therefore, the housing charity would be losing the £6,000 because of the changed value of the asset of which it was disposing, and the property as a whole. Therefore, the Solicitor-General's advice is misleading, and the Charity Commission will need to have another look at the problem because charities will be losing assets and disposing of them at less than the best possible price.

Mr. Chapman: Surely the point is that, with a sitting tenant, the value of the property—it is difficult to generalise—could well be only one third of its value with vacant possession. That is a crucial point. Surely that knocks to pieces the point that the hon. Lady is making.

Mrs. Taylor: Not at all. Those housing charities are in the business of renting accommodation, and that is the value of the property to them. They regard the property as a valuable unit which could be rented to a family in need or with problems. That is their purpose. The Bill cuts across the most fundamental reason for their existence because it will prevent them from housing people in need.
As many hon. Members have said, we have received many representations. They have come from Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist, and Salvation Army housing associations, and from large housing charities such as Peabody and Sutton Guinness and others that have been working for many years. We have also received representations from housing charities that deal with handicapped people, those with behavioural, drinking or financial problems and charities that house refugees. Many people involved in housing associations are deeply worried that the reason for their existence will be undermined by this legislation.
We are dealing with people who probably have no chance of buying accommodation and therefore need rented accommodation. Their chances of obtaining rented accommodation from the other part of the public sector—the council house side—are being reduced considerably because of the sale of council houses and the lack of new building.
The hon. Member for Buckingham said that we were dealing mainly with people who lived in inner city areas. He drew attention to people who lived in London. People in London who live in housing charity accommodation


have little chance of getting alternative accommodation. There is no possibility of their being able to afford to buy in London and little possibility of their being able to find rented private sector accommodation because of the many gross abuses of rent legislation in London and the consequently high rents.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned some of the smaller housing associations that deal with people with special problems. We raised the subject in Committee and are deeply worried about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East mentioned the Egerton housing association which may be forced out of existence by the Bill. I share his anxiety about the small housing associations that are trying to help special groups of people with special problems. The elderly are just one of the categories that housing associations try to help.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Housing Act 1980 contained some exceptions so that the right to buy does not exist when accommodation is required for elderly people. The problem is that the legislation has not worked out as the Minister said it would. The assurances that he gave in 1980 have proved to be worthless in practice. The Minister has turned down 90 per cent. of the applications for exemption under the 1980 Act for people who live in accommodation that is deemed to be for elderly people. Therefore, in all but 10 per cent. of the cases, the Minister has allowed the sales to go ahead. Therefore, there is no real protection for the people who are trying to help the elderly or to provide housing for people in greatest need.
If the Bill is passed, housing charities will lose their assets. It is no use the Minister saying that the proceeds of the sales will be recycled. We know from our experience of council house sales that local authorities must sell 12 houses to build one new one. Housing charities will be in even worse circumstances because the Exchequer will get its money back and many housing charities will be forced out of existence because they will be deprived of funds to continue or replace the stock that they have sold.
Some housing charities will disappear for financial reasons, others will be forced out of existence because the volunteers who have run them will say, "Why should we bother? Why should our voluntary effort, which has been given willingly for many years, simply result in private gain for a few fortunate people?". That was not their objective or their intention. There can be no point in such voluntary effort if that is the result of the Minister's legislation.
Hon. Members have today reinforced some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. We warned the Government then that this would not be the end of the matter. We intend to support the amendment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh), I hope that it will be successful. If it is not, I am sure that the Minister will have to come to terms with the problem in another place. I look forward to the whole House supporting the changes on that occasion.

Mr. Stanley: I shall try to respond to the points that have been made, but I may not be able to deal with all of them because of the shortage of time.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) read a letter from the Salvation Army housing association. It has been somewhat overtaken. That is not unusual

because there has been an enormous amount of misunderstanding and some misrepresentation of our proposals. It is only when they have been properly explained that people have been able to take a balanced view. It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has received another letter from the commissioner who is responsible for the Salvation Army housing association, which reads as follows:
Thank you for your kind explanatory letter of 31st January. This, taken together with the Minister's statement in Standing Committee F, does very largely allay our misgivings concerning the Housing and Building Control Bill. In this I speak, not only for our Association but also for The Salvation Army, from whom any charitable input of funds must normally come".
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) raised two important points. He referred to the problem of small housing associations that deal with specialist matters. There are already exemptions for some of the specialties, such as the elderly and the disabled. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) unfairly misrepresented the exemptions for the elderly, because she referred solely to paragraph 5 of schedule 1 and did not refer at all to paragraph 4 of that schedule, under which all sheltered accommodation is exempt without reference to the Secretary of State. As to the number of terminations that have been granted by the Secretary of State in giving the right to buy, we received several blanket applications from Labour-controlled authorities which, for example, excluded all ground floor accommodation.

Mrs. Taylor: Very sensible.

Mr. Stanley: That is not remotely within the terms of the legislation as agreed by Parliament.
I should also like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown to the fact that already, in schedule 4 of the 1980 Act, there are several grounds for possession that might be applicable in certain circumstances if a specialist housing association wanted to preserve its accommodation for special uses. Perhaps he would like to consider grounds 9, 11 and 12. If I can give him any more help on the possible use of those grounds in the circumstances to which he has referred, I shall be glad to do so. They are relevant.
My hon. Friend also asked about donations to charities. I assure him that there are no rational grounds for saying that the Bill will act as a deterrent to the giving of donations. If donations are given in kind by way of land, all dwellings that are built on charitably donated land are exempt. If the donation is in the building of a property, that is also exempt, even if housing association grant has been spent on the property. No donor need worry about that. If a cash donation is translated into either land or the purchase of a building, by the same token those exemptions will apply. A small cash donation that may be used to top up an existing housing association grant charitable property will be preserved at its modern value.
I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), because I recognise his wish to give more of his constituents the opportunity of home ownership. I understand his frustration with the constituency case that he mentioned where, under an earlier financing system, tenants of charitable housing associations are not brought within the parameters of this legislation. However, we have carefully considered the earlier subsidy systems, and


it is clear that that legislation was different from the Housing Act 1974, which created the housing association grant.
There is likely to have been a significant input of charitable funds into those earlier publicly funded properties. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot be certain, as we can with the housing association grant system, of being able to provide full protection for charitable funds, which has been a fundamental principle of the Government. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot accept his amendment, simply because the Government cannot be certain that they can provide the proper protection for charitable funds, which was part of our stance when we brought forward these provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) was clearly worried that there would be a significant overall reduction in rented property available from charitable housing associations. There are no grounds for believing that, because only secure tenants under the Housing Act 1980 can buy. If one is not a secure tenant, one cannot exercise the right to buy. A secure tenant has full rights to his home and to succession in his home. The practice in local authority accomodation and in non-charitable housing association accommodation is that the great majority of secure tenants who do not have the right to buy will remain secure tenants in their properties for a considerable period, and so a very small proportion of property is likely to become available for people on the waiting list. Therefore, it cannot be said that if we confer the right to buy on a relatively small proportion of tenants, it will amount to a material reduction in the available rented property. If we were to create more rented opportunities for charitable housing associations, we would do that largely with new building, rehabilitation and the bringing in of additional properties.
I can give the House statistics that show what has happened to housing association rented properties since the 1980 Act. In 1980, we gave the right to buy to tenants of non-charitable housing associations. Up to the end of last year, the number of completed sales by those associations was 2,550. In comparison, during the lifetime of this Government we have expanded the rented stock of charitable and non-charitable housing associations by 120,000 units. For every one housing association dwelling where the tenant had exercised his right to buy, we have added nearly 50 units to the existing rented stock. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that there will be a dramatic reduction in rented accommodation in the charitable sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham also mentioned the effect on voluntary workers, and again we know what has happened. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, non-charitable housing associations cater for almost exactly the same category of people as charitable housing associations. Those tenants have had the right to buy for two and a half years. Any disastrous loss of enthusiasm or a drain of voluntary workers should have taken place during that period, but I am glad to tell the House that there is no sign of a diminution of enthusiasm in the non-charitable housing associations. They are as strong now as they ever were, and I am inundated with demands for additional housing association grant allocations and housing schemes. Indeed, there are so many demands from those

associations that, if we wished, we could spend all the Housing Corporation's approved development programme on the non-charitable housing associations. Of course we do not. Those associations have survived perfectly well and are as robust and dynamic now as they were when the right-to-buy scheme started in 1980.
Several hon. Members have mentioned retrospection, but that is a complete canard. The Government are not conferring rights retrospectively against assets that were created by the charity itself. The right-to-buy scheme applies only to dwellings that were provided by taxpayers' money together with housing association grant. It would have been different had we conferred rights against charitable assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) was right to say that the Leasehold Reform Act is by no means irrelevant. For 15 years, the House has agreed the leasehold enfranchisement, which included 30 per cent. of charitable dwellings. That meant that about 300,000 charitable properties were affected by that legislation. The retrospective legislation applied to dwellings that were built entirely with private money.
Apart from the fact that this legislation applies only to publicly funded dwellings, the central question is that of discriminatory treatment of tenants of charitable housing associations in housing association grant-funded property. Those tenants are identical in legal and financial terms to the tenants who already have the right to buy non-charitable housing association stock. On those grounds, I believe that it is right and equitable that we make a limited expansion of the right to buy available to the small group of charitable housing association tenants living in wholly publicly funded dwellings.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 258.

Division No. 99]
[8 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam


Allaun, Frank
Davidson, Arthur


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dixon, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dormand, Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dunnett, Jack


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, John (Newton)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Faulds, Andrew


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ford, Ben


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cartwright, John
Freud, Clement


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cohen, Stanley
Golding, John


Coleman, Donald
Graham, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Crowther, Stan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter






Heffer, Eric S.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Richardson, Jo


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hoyle, Douglas
Robertson, George


Huckfield, Les
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roper, John


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rowlands, Ted


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ryman, John


John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sever, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Leighton, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Lestor, Miss Joan
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Litherland, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Tilley, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth


Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morton, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Woodall, Alec


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Sheila


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Park, George



Parker, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brinton, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom
Brotherton, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Banks, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Burden, Sir Frederick


Best, Keith
Butcher, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W. S.


Body, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clegg, Sir Walter





Cockeram, Eric
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cormack, Patrick
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Costain, Sir Albert
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Critchley, Julian
Loveridge, John


Crouch, David
Luce, Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Macfarlane, Neil


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
MacGregor, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eggar, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Eyre, Reginald
Major, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marland, Paul


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Farr, John
Mates, Michael


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (B grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Miscampbell, Norman


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gardner, Sir Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan, Geraint


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mudd, David


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Myles, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John


Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Parris, Matthew


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Percival, Sir Ian


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hooson, Tom
Pollock, Alexander


Hordern, Peter
Porter, Barry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Shepherd, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waldegrave, Mon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Speller, Tony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walters, Dennis


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stainton, Keith
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wickenden, Keith


Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.



Thompson, Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o' clock.

Clause 5

NOTICE TO COMPLETE BY LANDLORD

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 6, line 17, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.

No. 6, in, page 6, line 41, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.

No. 7, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
'(6A) At any time before the end of the period stated in a notice under subsection (6) above (or that period as extended under this subsection), the landlord may by a written notice served on the tenant extend (or further extend) that period.'

No. 8, in page 7, line 1, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.

No. 9, in page 7, line 4, at end insert
'or, as the case may require, that period as extended under subsection (6A) above.'

No. 10, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.

No. 11, in page 7, line 16, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.

No. 12, in page 7, line 17, leave out '(6A)' and insert '(6B)'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 9

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ETC

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 10, line 1, leave out Clause 9.—[Mr Stanley.]

Clause 10

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO GIVE ASSISTANCE

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 24, leave out '24' and insert '24C'.

No. 47, in page 10, line 26, leave out '24A' and insert '24D'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 11

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS CERTAIN MORTGAGE COSTS

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 12, line 5, leave out '24A' and insert '24D'.

No. 49, in page 12, line 7, leave out '24B' and insert '24E'.

No. 13, in page 12, line 31, at end insert—
(2) In section 27(2) of the 1980 Act (interpretation of Chapter I of Part I of that Act) immediately before the definition of "district valuer" there shall be inserted the following definition—
building society" means a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1962 or the Building Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1967;"; and in section 8(8) of that Act the words from the beginning to "and" shall be omitted.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 14

NOTICE OF INITIAL CONTRIBUTION ETC

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 14, line 4, leave out 'as soon as practicable' and insert 'within eight weeks'.
The amendment has been inspired by what was, for me, the most revolutionary spectacle during the Committee proceedings—the sight of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) moving an amendment to speed up the right to buy by deleting the requirement on local authorities to serve a shared ownership offer notice, not, as originally drafted, as soon as practical after the tenant's right to be granted a shared ownership lease has been established, but within eight weeks.
We have contemplated the hon. Gentleman's excellent initiative. I am sorry that he is not with us. I express my gratitude and appreciation to him for his helpful contribution towards speeding up progress with the right to buy. We are satisfied that the introduction of such a deadline into clause 14(1) is reasonable because most of the information required for the shared ownership offer notice will already have been ascertained by the landlord under the right-to-buy procedures. Landlords should find no difficulty, therefore, in meeting the eight-week deadline. The valuation, the tenant's discount and the mortgage entitlement will have been previously assessed.
I ask the House to accept the amendment. I once again express my appreciation and thanks to the hon. Member for Walsall, North for his belated, but none the less deeply welcome, conversion to the cause of greater progress in implementing the right to buy.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 14, line 5, after 'a', insert 'written'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18 and 37 to 39.

Mr. Stanley: These are drafting amendments to ensure consistency in the description of "notices" in part 1 of the Bill. They all relate to notices served by a landlord on the tenant, and in most cases the detail that they are required to contain must mean that in practice the notices will be given in writing. The amendments will help to avoid any confusion and put it beyond doubt as to how the notices are to be served.

Mr. Graham: Is there any consistency in the listing of these amendments? Can the Minister explain why the list refers to Government amendments 16 to 18, whereas Government amendments 37, 38 and 39 are listed separately? That is not consistent.

Mr. Stanley: I am mesmerised by the hon. Gentleman's question. I have no idea what the answer is, but I shall be happy to send him a detailed explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 14, line 23, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 16

RIGHT TO FURTHER ADVANCES

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 15, line 14, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 17

COMPLETION

Amendments made:

No. 18, in page 16, line 32, after 'a', insert 'further written'.

No. 19, in page 16 line 38, at end insert—
'(6A) At any time before the end of the period stated in a notice under subsection (6) above (or that period as extended under this subsection), the landlord may by a written notice served on the tenant extend (or further extend) that period.'.

No. 20, in page 16, line 44, at end insert
'or, as the case may require, that period as extended under subsection (6A) above.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 18

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ACTS

Amendments made:

No. 21, in page 17, line 19, leave out from 'lease' to 'shall' in line 22 and insert 'the tenancy'.

No, 22, in page 17, line 24, leave out from leaseholds)' to end of line 25 and insert
'—

(a) as being a long tenancy notwithstanding that the lease is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years; and
(b) as being a tenancy at a low rent notwithstanding that rent is payable under the tenancy at a yearly rate equal to or more than two-thirds of the rateable value of the dwelling-house on the first day of the term.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, where a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house is created by the grant of a shared ownership lease, then, so long as the rent

payable under the lease exceeds £10 per annum, neither the tenant nor the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or 7ndirectly derived out of the tenancy shall be entitled to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the dwelling-house under Part I of the said Act of 1967'.

No. 23, in page 18, line 4, at end insert—
'(5) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983".'.[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 19

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF 1980 ACT

Amendments made:

No. 50, in page 18, line 12, leave out 'section 23' and insert 'sections 23 and 24'.

No. 51, in page 18, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
'sections 24A and 24B (Secretary of State's power to give directions);
section 24C (Secretary of State's power to obtain information etc.);
section 24D (Secretary of State's power to give assistance);
section 24E (power of local authorities to contribute towards certain mortgage costs);'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 21

RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS FOR WHICH LANDLORD IS RESPONSIBLE

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 8 leave out '37A' and insert '41'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.

Mr. Stanley: First, I wish to explain that amendments Nos. 52 to 54 are not substantive. Their purpose is simply to secure the proper ordering of the new clauses within the tenants' charter provisions of chapter II of part I of the Housing Act 1980. They bring together the clause on secure tenants' rights to repairs and a new clause on heating charges under a new heading:
Other rights of secure tenants".
The substantive amendment in the group is amendment No. 55. As the House will be aware, a significant number of council tenants using district heating are worried about their heating charges. They are worried about the lack of information on how those charges should be calculated and they wonder whether the basis of the apportionment of the cost of heating between individual tenants is reasonable.
The Government have given further consideration to the whole issue, following the ten-minute Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on 20 April last year. On that occassion, the ten-minute Bill was in no way an empty expression of views, introducing no legislative progress. After detailed consideration of the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the Government moved towards the process of consultation. Although the Government were convinced by the merits of the case, I should like to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Gentleman, who was the originator of the provisions.
On 28 June, we issued a consultation letter to local authorities inviting their views on the possibility of giving public tenants statutory rights of information and legal


challenge in respect of heating charges, bearing in mind that private tenants already had such rights under schedule 19 to the 1980 Acts.
One of the purposes of the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill was to achieve greater comparability between the legal rights of council tenants who remain tenants and those who exercise the right to buy or to be lessees, as most of those on district heating would be, who would benefit from the extension to lessees of the protection provided by schedule 19 in respect of service charges.
As I said in Committee, we have concluded that it is right to make that further extension of the tenants' charter—hence the amendment. The amendment will give the Secretary of State enabling power to introduce certain requirements by regulation. The regulations would oblige local authorities and new town development corporations which supply heat to secure tenants to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by such tenants as will ensure that the proportion of the heating costs borne by each tenant is no greater than is reasonable.
The aim is to ensure, first, that tenants' heating charges are apportioned in a reasonable way between different dwellings and that the method of apportionment is open to challenge in the courts. Housing association tenants supplied with heat by their landlords are not included, as they are already protected under the fair rent system and schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
Secondly, secure tenants would be entitled to require their supplying authorities to furnish information about the costs incurred in supplying the heat and the charges payable to the supplying authorities. Secure tenants would also be entitled to require their supplying authorities to provide reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts and other supporting documentation and for taking copies or extracts from the documents. These rights would be broadly similar to the rights already enjoyed by tenants of flats in relation to variable services charges under schedule 19 to the 1980 Act.
From the reactions to the consultation last year, I believe that local authorities broadly accept that there should be proposals on these general lines. We wish to introduce the necessary regulations as soon as we can, but local authorities will need reasonable time to organise themselves to discharge their new obligations. Moreover, given the variety of district heating and accounting systems, it is essential that there should be further detailed consultation with the local authority associations as to the precise form of the regulations and the timing of their introduction. That consultation will be set in hand as soon as possible. We should like the information regulations to be operational for the 1984–85 financial year.
I believe that this is a worthwhile and sensible extension of the tenants' charter for several hundred thousand tenants supplied by various types of district heating system. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to query part of the amendment, not because we are not concerned about heating charges—we made it clear in Committee that we are concerned—but because the Minister said that the amendment related simply to information for tenants. That is reasonable, but the second part of the amendment provides that

The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies"—
and so on. On what basis does the Secretary of State believe that he will have sufficient information to establish reasonable regulations covering all the circumstances?
I ask that question in the light of the recent report of the Department's auditing inspectors who have been reviewing housing supervision, administration, management and so on. One of their tasks was to examine district heating charges and the means of determining what charges were reasonable and the items to be included. I simply wonder how the Minister thinks that he can achieve something that his own auditing inspectors could not achieve after detailed inspection of the procedures for calculating the charges in several authorities.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is a real pleasure to support the amendment. I reciprocate the Minister's kind remarks. The amendment would not exist and these important rights would not be conferred for the first time on council tenants were it not for the sympathetic and understanding response that he and the Under-Secretary of State made to my ten-minute Bill last April.
The excessive charges that council tenants often have to pay for space heating and water is a longstanding scandal. Council tenants pay about twice as much for the same quantity of space heating and hot water as they would do if they had separate gas-fired independent systems in each flat. I am discussing those cases where there is what I call a communal heating system fired by a central boiler and where the charge is levied each year by the local authority to recover its costs. Normally, the local authority endeavours only to cover the cost of fuel and not the cost of the actual heating installations which lie on the rent account, but even the cost of fuel is enormously high in most of the systems.
The cost is so high for several reasons. First, many of these systems, because they were developed years ago, use oil and not gas and, for at least some years until the present day, oil has been more expensive. Secondly, many of these systems are old fashioned and inefficient. Thirdly, there is often grotesquely inefficient management of these systems within housing departments. Fourthly, it is normally impossible with these systems for the tenants to switch them off during the day to save money. That contrasts, of course, with the position of a person who has an independent system in his home where, if everyone in the home is out through the day, the resident can turn off the system and save money. More and more these days, both adults in the family are out during the day and could, if they were able to save money by it, do without heating during the day. Those are some of the reasons for the high charges that the communal systems produce.
On previous occasions I have given examples of the charges that prevail in my constituency. They bear repeating, especially for those people who believe that council tenants have an easy and cheap ride compared to the rest of the community. For example, on the Packinston square estate in my constituency, tenants pay, for hot water and three space heating outlets which normally work very badly indeed, in the region of £9 a week all the year round—call it £450 a year. A similar charge prevails on the Jessop estate where there are three outlets for hot air, although the properties are not normally hot, plus water for


a charge of about £450 to £500 a year. Not only the inefficiency of Islington borough council produces such charges. In my constituency, I have a large number of places which belong to the City of London corporation. The Golden lane estate, which rests in the foothills of the Barbican, has enormously high heating charges. For water and one space heating outlet residents will pay as much as £400 a year. On the Delhi-Outram estate in Islington, people have an efficient and modern system with hot water and plenty of radiators, but it costs them more than £800 for the service. I could give many other examples. There is the Spa Green estate, the Priory Green estate, the Stafford Cripps estate and so on.
There is another special reason why this change in the law will be specially welcomed in Islington. Over the past two years Islington borough council, by monumental incompetence in keeping its books—incompetence which is not to be ascribed to any party because it is the work of officers of the council and not councillors—has managed to overcharge tenants, even according to the system that it was trying to impose, to the tune of £650,000. That is an overcharge of £100 per dwelling over two years. It is an overcharge of £1 a week through two years. Tenants in Islington with communal heating systems were being charged too much. I do not mean that they were paying a charge excessive for the service that they were getting, although that, too, is true. I mean that they were paying that much more than the fuel that they were using actually cost the council. The council could not competently keep its books to enable it to know how much the fuel was costing. That justifies the provisions in the amendment that state that council tenants in future must be able to gain access to the books in the same way as private tenants can gain access to the books to examine charges affecting them.
8.30 pm
The Islington borough council intends not to refund the money in cash or cheque to those from whom it has taken excess charges. Apparently it intends to deduct it from payments due in the future, as if the council were offering largesse to the tenants instead of handing back the money which it should never have taken from them in the first place. I intend to ensure that that maladministration, in my view, and wrong decision, gets to the local authority ombudsman. I think that he will say that it constitutes maladministration leading to injustice for the residents affected.
If the new proposed provisions had been on the statute book over the past few years, Islington borough council could not have got away with that kind of overcharging. If the council could not add up the figures, the residents would have been able to do so if only they could have got their hands on the books. Once they had done that, if these provisions had been law, they would have been able to go to the county court to argue that the charge was unreasonable.
The provisions that the Minister is introducing will give to many thousands of tenants rights which, as I understand it, the Minister intends to make as near as possible identical to the rights now enjoyed by private tenants. That is, first, to have the right to all the information necessary to know what costs lie behind the charge and, secondly, the right to go to the county court to argue that the charge is unreasonable for the service provided.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench for the Labour party, a party which has not over the past two years taken much of an interest in this matter or done anything practical about it, raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: rose—

Mr. Cunningham: No. The hon. Lady raised an artificial difficulty as to what would be reasonable. In the case of a private tenant, the court is the body that decides what would be reasonable. Although it is much easier in the case of most private blocks to work out what is reasonable, there are cases where the difficulties are comparable with the difficulties which apply to a council estate. If, for example, one of the very large and widespread housing associations such as Samuel Lewis, Peabody or Sutton estate wanted to pool the whole of its estate for the purpose of heating charges, then the issue would come up as to whether it was reasonable to do that for the whole of the estate or whether it ought to pool only within individual blocks in the tiny sections of the estates. That would be a matter for the court to decide.
I think that we shall get into enormous difficulties if we start to construct in the regulations that the Minister proposes to make rules that depart from the principle that applies in the case of private tenants. My understanding is that the regulations might give elaborate definitions of the information that tenants are to be allowed to get from the council. When it comes to what is enforceable in the county court, as I understand it, the intention is that the regulations will rest upon the definition of reasonableness and will leave the interpretation of that word to the courts, as in the case of a private tenant.
There has been a two-year battle to get the regulations changed. Once again I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction. From the very moment when the ten-minute Bill was moved last April, he made clear in words and in actions that the change would have his full sympathy and support. Consultations then took place between the Department of the Environment and local authority associations. Local authority associations were told to respond quickly. All this has been an admirable illustration of proper, productive co-operation between a Back-Bench Member and the Treasury Bench. Thousands and thousands of my constituents and many others elsewhere will express gratitude to all of us in the House who have taken part in the operation.

Mr. Stanley: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) and touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind comments.
On the interpretation of subsection (2), my initial response when I saw the draft was the same as that of the hon. Lady. I did not wish my right hon. Friend to decide exactly what should be the criteria as to reasonableness in apportioning district heating charges. I am advised that subsection (2) does not enable the Secretary of State to lay down how "reasonable" should be interpreted. That is entirely a matter for the court, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury indicated.
Subsection (2) only enables the Secretary of State to impose the requirement by regulation that the method adopted by heating authorities to which the regulation applies will comply with the subsection. As I understand it, the regulation would simply indicate that there will be an obligation on local authorities to adopt such methods for determining heating charges payable by secure tenants as will ensure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable. In other words, the regulation would effectively reproduce what is stated in subsection (2).
I hope that gives a sense of relief to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. It was a relief to me when I was advised that that was the interpretation because we do not want to be in the business of having to try to determine what criteria should be adopted for what is reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 21, line 9, leave out 'section' and insert
'sections—

Other rights of secure tenants'

No. 54, in page 21, line 10, leave out '37B' and insert '41A'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 21, line 23, at end insert—
'(c) The scheme will operate only where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant.
(d) The landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors whose services must be used by the tenant and where a direct labour department exists the tenant must obtain two quotations one of which must be from the direct labour department.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69.

Mr. Roberts: I want to explain why Members of the Opposition have tabled these amendments and why we think they are essential. In justifying them, I wish to refer to what the Government are proposing and then point out how the amendments would operate in relation to that, and also what the amendments mean in relation to the policy of the Labour party on tenants' rights to repairs and the relationship that direct labour departments should have with those rights.
Clause 21, which these two amendments propose to change, is a blatant attempt by the Government to privatise the repair services of local authorities. There is no doubt about that. The proposal is that the Secretary of State can make regulations to provide a scheme for entitling secure tenants to carry out their own repairs. This would be done by the employment of private contractors and, if the clause is unamended, only by private contractors, even, it seems, where the local authority is not in default and is providing an adequate repair and maintenance service with which the tenants may be completely satisfied.
There are many objections to the clause. It would make things worse for the tenants. It effectively removes the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. One purpose of amendment No. 69 is to ensure that, if a privatisation scheme is to be introduced, an attempt should be made to spell out the landlords' obligations even when

the Government will not accept an input from the direct labour department where a private tenant wishes to have a repair done.
We wish to prevent the removal of the landlords' obligations while the scheme is in operation. It is a great danger. Under the clause, some local authorities could take advantage of the scheme to offer a superficially attractive discount rent to tenants provided that they undertook to carry out all the repairs for which the landlord was otherwise responsible. To tenants, that might at first seem attractive. Eventually, however, the tenant might be worse off. The tenant might face big repair bills once the landlord's obligations had been destroyed in law following the introduction of the scheme and the tenant's acceptance of proposals from the local authority.
The costs to the local authority when the scheme is implemented will be considerable. It is a dubious claim that tenants' money will, in the long run, be saved. Local authorities will have to produce new accounting methods to identify separately the costs of every minor repair. There will be the cost of setting up the scheme and the cost of inspection to make sure that repairs are adequately carried out. This could be costly even for the local authority with an efficient repair and maintenance service if the new scheme is superimposed upon it.
It is worrying that the tenants taking advantage of the scheme will probably be the most able and the richer tenants who can fund the repairs in the first instance before claiming back the money. Some of these more able tenants may carry out the work at the moment without payment. Under the scheme, they will be entitled to payment. Costs will arise that will be passed on to other tenants. This concerns the Opposition.
8.45 pm
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is opposed to this proposal and supports, to some extent if not completely, our amendments. It has said, in submission to members for the Standing Committee, that it recognises that many council tenants are dissatisfied with their repair service, as Opposition Members also recognised. That is why in Committee we tabled our own clause, which we thought a fair and just one, to provide a proper right-to-repair service and a proper right in law to tenants to have repairs done where the local authority is in default.
In its submission, the AMA goes on:
We would therefore respectfully suggest that if the Minister is genuinely interested in improving the repair service for a majority of tenants"—
having accepted that there are many inadequacies in many areas—
a more thorough and well thought out series of proposals be considered rather than a very narrow scheme such as this and whilst it may appear superficially attractive it does nothing to solve the very many problems that do exist in the repairs service and may well make matters significantly worse.
Amendment No. 68 simply requires the Secretary of State to use his powers
only where a landlord has failed within reasonable time to carry out repairs after receiving due notice from the secure tenant.
In other words, if the tenant has served notice on the local authority that a repair needs to be done, and if the repair is not carried out within a reasonable time, it allows the tenant to have it carried out himself and to charge the local authority. If the Governemt are interested in ensuring that local authorities have an efficient repair service, this is one of the best ways of bringing it about. A local authority will not want tenants to do repairs themselves or


have them done and then charge the authority because it would be an inconvenience to the housing department, the direct labour department and the local authority generally. If such a provison existed, it would be a great incentive to local authorities to provide an efficient repair and maintenance service.
Whatever the Minister may think, the council tenants that I meet when canvassing or running advice bureaux do not really want to have to do the repairs themselves or even the right to do them. They pay their rent and they expect the landlord to do the repairs. What we want is to make sure that local authorities provide this efficient repair and maintenance service and that tenants be given the right to do the work themselves and to charge the local authority if this service is not provided.
The second part of amendment 68 says that
the landlord shall from time to time publish a list of approved contractors.
If the scheme that we are proposing were put into operation, and a secure tenant could get a repair done if the landlord was in default, the landlord should publish a list of approved contractors from whom the tenant would be required to obtain quotations. We do not think that this is unreasonable. Both the tenant and the local authority want to he protected from the inadequate builder who does a shoddy job. This is not an unusual proposal. Local authorities commonly publish lists of approved contractors for the guidance of, for example, owner-occupiers who are given improvement grants.
Then we go on to say that if a local authority has a direct labour department the tenant must obtain two quotations, one of which must be from the direct labour department. This is not inspired by a doctrinaire desire to protect the public sector and direct labour departments, although I am sure that there are some doctrinaire reasons for the Government's proposals on this clause which will, as they privatise the repair service, destroy direct labour departments. In view of the restrictions that have already been imposed on direct labour departments by the Government, administratively and legislatively, through the 1980 Housing Act, this could be the last straw—or perhaps brick—to break the back of direct labour departments and force them out of existence.
If direct labour departments are to have a fair chance to survive, it is important that they be given a workload that will enable them to provide continuity of employment and remain in existence in competition with the private sector. However, as council houses are sold, as limits are placed on the work for which direct labour departments can tender, and as housing construction in the public sector diminishes because of the Government's reduction of the housing investment programme, direct labour departments are being squeezed more and more. That has nothing to do with competition. It seems that the Government are frightened of direct labour departments competing fairly with the private sector.
Will private contractors be invited to provide a tender to a council tenant who wishes a repair to be carried out? If so, why should direct labour departments not be allowed to place a competitive tender as well? If the Government believe in competition, it should surely apply to direct labour departments as well as to private builders.
Our amendment requires that a local authority tenant should seek at least two quotations, one of which should be from a direct labour department if one exists in the area.
We have also included the direct labour department to protect both the tenant and the local authority. After all, the local authority will be charged for the cost of the repair. It is appropriate to have a public sector input to prevent such things as price rings and to ensure that groups of builders do not get together, set their own high charges and make hefty profits. Direct labour departments are good at ensuring that the private sector knows that it cannot get up to such tricks. They are there as a check to prevent such things happening.
In Committee, a Conservative Member said that I did not live in the real world and pointed out that price rings were illegal. However, there are many examples of illegal price fixing. I tabled an early-day motion asking the Secretary of State for the Environment rigorously to investigate a blatant price-fixing ring set up by painting contractors in the north-west. They tried to extort nearly £200,000 from Manchester city council, after getting away with £92,358. The firms concerned clearly connived at sharing out the contracts between them, and charged prices up to four times as much as the estimates given by direct works departments. That Mafia-style approach to tendering was highlighted when all those firms submitted very high tenders after being invited to tender for the painting of a school. Another private firm put in a much lower tender, and was later asked to go on the list.
That shows that such price rings take place. Without an input from direct labour departments, I am sure that private builders would get together for such a purpose.
Labour party members, employers of direct labour departments and Labour councillors who sit on housing and direct labour committees have expressed anxiety not only about the Government's proposals but even about the proposals by Labour Members of the Committee to give tenants the right to have a repair service in law. All those people are rightly concerned that even the proposals in amendment No. 68 are likely to take work away from direct labour departments.
Those who rightly support the public building sector and direct labour departments should consider our proposals to give tenants the right to a decent repair service and the right to have their repairs done and then charge the council landlord, when the landlord is in default, in the context of the fact that this Government seem determined to privatise this whole area. We as Labour Members are trying to safeguard the direct labour departments by ensuring that they are included in any scheme that gives tenants the right to have repairs done. The next Labour Government will introduce a tenants' right to repair in the context of other proposals to revitalise direct labour departments.
Those who are concerned about direct labour departments are anxious because the base load of work of direct labour departments, on which they depend for their very existence—the repair and maintenance of council houses—will be taken away from them. That work is essential to direct labour departments if they are to survive, because they are restricted in the work that they can take on. At present, they do all council house repairs because they cannot tender for work for other local authorities. They are not allowed to tender for work in the private sector. They cannot do improvement work for owner-occupiers. They cannot compete with Wimpeys or Barratts for private sector schemes.
Other building concerns which build council houses for local authorities can work in the private sector when


council house contracts dry up. They can even go abroad. Direct labour departments cannot do any of those things. Under the next Labour Government, that will be changed. We shall legislate to allow direct labour departments to work for other local authorities and to tender, in competition with the private sector, for work in the private sector. I am sure that they will tender and win, and provide a service for the people of Britain, providing the type of competition that is necessary.
We hope that those who look at our proposals to give tenants the right to repairs will realise the context in which we do so. If the next Labour Goverment give council tenants the right to repairs, it will be done at a time when those direct labour departments are revitalised generally. In the meantime, these amendments are intended not only to safeguard those direct labour departments from a privatisation scheme that the Conservative Government want to introduce, but to safeguard council tenants from what, in my opinion, are ill-thought-out proposals which will not benefit tenants in the long run. Tenants want an efficient repair and maintenance service. They want the right to do repairs themselves only when the local authority fails to carry out those repairs. Tenants would prefer the local authority to do the repairs properly in the first place. The Goverment's clause is likely to have the opposite effect.
Amendment No. 69 is important if we want to protect council tenants. It is no good having a scheme which does not spell out for council tenants and landlords the landlords' obligations, the repairs that landlords should carry out and the timescale for such repairs.
9 pm
It is not possible, as Labour Members wish, to have a scheme whereby tenants can have repairs done when the landlord is in default unless we know of what they would be in default. That is why amendment No. 69 is an essential adjunct to amendment No. 68. If the Government do not accept amendment No. 68, surely there is no reason why they should not accept amendment No. 69, which in no way tries to destroy the Government's attempt at privatisation. Nor does it put direct labour departments back into the picture. It tries to prevent the schemes introduced by the Secretary of State from destroying what exists—the landlord's obligation to do repairs. It requires any scheme to publish and produce a statement of what the landlord is expected to carry out. Whether or not the landlord fails to carry out his obligations, the tenant has the right in law to do the repairs and charge the local authority. For those who prefer the landlord to fulfil his obligations there is a statement within the scheme setting out those obligations and stating what a council tenant should expect from a landlord when making a request to the housing department for a repair to be carried out.
I cannot see any doctrinaire reason against amendment No. 69, unless the Government want to destroy the tenant's ability to ensure that the landlord makes repairs. It might be that they want to force even more tenants to buy their council houses. If as well as having to pay high rents tenants cannot get their repairs done, they might be encouraged to move. That might be behind the Government's thinking but I hope not. If the Government cannot accept amendment No. 68, I hope they will try to

accept amendment No. 69 or at least say that something similar can be included when the Bill goes for consideration to another place.
I hope that I have done four things. I hope that I have shown that the Government's proposals are inadequate and will have the opposite effect to that which they wanted. They will make things worse for the vast majority of tenants rather than better. I hope that I have shown that the proposals of my hon. Friends are not against the council tenant having the right to a decent repair service—rather, the opposite—and that they are fundamental to our belief that council tenants should have the same rights as owner-occupiers, and even more. I hope that I have justified the need to include an element of direct labour involvement for the sake of the tenants and I hope I have allayed the fears of those who are worried about maintaining direct labour departments. Labour Members are putting forward their proposals in that spirit and to ensure that we keep a viable and, in the end, revitalised and thriving public building sector.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the rest of my hon. Friends on tabling these important amendments. The prospect of enabling tenants to carry out repairs with no consideration of the complexity of the problems involved suggests that whoever drafted the Bill had more experience of council houses than he had of council flats of the kind that are typical in my constituency in an inner London borough.
I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of tenants from one of my housing estates about the repair of doors. The tenants association is seriously considering not only whether a new door should be introduced for the fiats on the estate in question but how to test it properly to make sure that it is effective.
One of the points that the association made to me is that if the door is so strong that the tenant feels secure, the fire brigade cannot easily gain access, and may not be able to do so. Also, if the door is not properly fitted it may be hazardous for the tenant to go ahead with what amounts to a do-it-yourself door replacement by hiring a private contractor.
What about other elements of repair, such as a slight modification that may be attractive to those involved? For example, one might block out a tiresome ventilation outlet in a flat through which heat loss has occurred. What are the risks if there is not adequate supervision by the council of private repairs that are being undertaken? If there is adequate supervision, why should not the task have been done by the council in the first place?
A patchwork of different coloured doors or of different internal repairs does not offend me aesthetically. I am concerned about the safety of tenants, especially in high-rise blocks and landing access blocks if they go ahead with certain repairs that become extensive modifications and obstruct an exit in the case of a fire or access for the fire brigade.
Another example I can quote is that of floors. It would seem to be a simple matter. If there is something wrong with one's floor, one should call in the contractor to deal with it. In my constituency we have one of the densest estates in the whole of London. It is aptly named the Ethelred estate—apt because we all know one thing and one thing only about Ethelred, that he was perpetually


unready. When the estate was built the Tory GLC was determined to bring in private rather than public contractors.
The floors on the estate were to have in-built central heating and certain compounds that depend on precise specifications. Competition being what it is, and it is often rather ragged at the edges of the market, the contractors who undertook to install the floors in two houses—Groome House and Michelson House—skimped on the specifications. As a result, shortly after coming into their flats, tenants found that their chairs started to sink into the floor and the bonded cement began to turn into sand. Having done so, because the floor was warm, it immediately became infected by all kinds of exciting little creatures which were no doubt of great interest to a biologist but were not welcome to the tenants of the flats.
What was to be done about the repairs? I am not claiming that Lambeth council moved with lightning speed to undertake them. However, there was a real problem because this new type of bonded floor offered by the private contractor had not been extensively supplied before. It would be difficult to remedy the problem when the initial specifications had not been met. But allegedly a range of solutions was available.
The mind boggles when we hear Saatchi and Saatchi tell us that mass unemployment really works. The mind also boggles at the company who thought of the brand name epoxy resin, known to many of my constituents as "poxy resin". "Poxy resin" was the recommended solution for the floor in question. "Poxy resin" was applied in a test case. I am glad that it was applied in a test case in the flats in Groome and Michelson houses on the Ethelred estate. It was rapidly found that the effects of "poxy resin" could not only be scented at several yards but had noxious consequences.
Clause 21 specifies that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow tenants to carry out repairs and recover the cost. What would have happened in the Groome and Michelson flats if "poxy resin" had really caught on? One can imagine one neighbour turning to the next and saying, "We have got the stuff we need. It is called 'poxy resin.' Lay it down or get yourself a contractor to set it in.". Everyone would be knee deep in "poxy resin." One can imagine the effects of introducing it if, at the same time, tenants happened to get in private contractors to fit the heavy doors which are so strongly recommended as a security measure. One has a picture of tenants caught with "poxy resin" behind doors that cannot be opened because fly-by-night contractors have not properly fitted them.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is sensitive about the issues that affect inner London boroughs and constituencies such as mine. He and the Secretary of State may say that there is a remedy through the market or the courts. Tell that to the poor citizens and tenants of Groome and Michelson houses. When the floors went through and they asked the council to sue the contractors, lo and behold, the very reason why the specification of floors had been skimped in the first place had resulted in the disappearance of the contractors. In other words, far from the profit motive being the guarantee of good customer service, with financial difficulties and the declining rate of profit that faced the small contracting firm, it skimped on the specification and has gone bust. Therefore, there was no redress. Solving the problems of those premises involves the entire reconstruction of the floors.
We have had doors and floors, but what about something else that seems really simple, like a ceiling? The architect of this clause seems to have seen either semi-detached properties or council houses only. If he cared to come round and look in my constituency, either at the Hemans estate or parts of other estates, he would find flat roofs.
If the ceiling inside one's flat is leaking and it is damaging one's furniture and one is covering up the furniture, not using the room, and one applies to the council for a rebate because of loss of use of a room, one can at least get some money from the council and bring some pressure to bear. One may even engage the democratic process and get hold of one's councillor or Member of Parliament to get something done. But what happens if one gets in another fly-by-night cowboy builder? He might be much more ready to say that something can be done about the ceiling than mention the roof. He may say, "Yes sir, yes madam, we will see to it immediately. We will have someone in this afternoon or tomorrow morning and sort it out."
It is obvious that if such a builder sorts out the symptoms rather than the causes of the damage, the damp will come through time and again. In key repairs that affect the inside of flats, we do not need a new slate on the roof or the unblocking of a drain but a new roof and new drainage system. Many council estates that were constructed in the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s have now come to the end of their natural life and need major modernisation and rehabilitation programmes.
The result for tenants who might, misguidedly, take advantage of the Government's proposal if this Bill goes on the statute book, because it appears to give them quicker repairs, will be not reduced costs and better service but, probably, higher costs. There will probably be higher direct costs and certainly higher indirect costs.
What will happen if a council is planning to modernise an estate? Where is the provision in the Bill that takes into account the decanting of an estate by a council? If such decanting occurs, the tenant may believe that he has the right to call in someone to carry out the repairs and to send the bill to the council. But what happens if the council contests the bill? Who, in the Lord's name, will determine what is a reasonable cost that does not exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the landlord carried out the repairs?
9.15 pm
There would need to be a dual accounting system to determine the cost of the repair. Not only would a private contractor carry it out, but someone from the council must evaluate its cost. We may be told that the council will have a rule of thumb test. Tell that to the tenant, when Johnny cowboy comes by and says, "Yes, madam. There is no problem. We shall do your sink top tomorrow". He may do the sink top the next day, but he may leave it detached 1½in from the wall at one end and 3½in from the nearest working surface. The tenant will end up with an unsatisfactory repair and will probably wish to take action against the builder, who by then—as in the case of the Groome and Michelson contractors—may have gone bust. The tenant may have to claim from the council a price charged by a private contractor well in excess of the real direct cost of the operation.
I talk with some experience of the difficulties involved. It was pointed out to me recently by a convener of the


direct labour organisation in my constituency that the replacement or repair of a sink top was not a simple operation. Thanks to the freedom of choice that we have through the market mechanism, one can apparently get 15 different sorts of sink top just for starters. When I had a sink top fitted, the commercial contractor assured me that the top that he supplied would fit exactly over the two cupboard units, but of course it did not. What happens when it does not fit? What happens when a private contractor does not give good service? How can one evaluate a normal cost, even for something as simple as putting in a sink top? One cannot do that, because it depends on the sort of top needed, whether new woodwork must be installed or whether the back facing of the sink must also be replaced.
I can assume only that the person who drafted this legislation has not only never lived in a council flat or house but has never seen the inside of one. That thought comes to me time and again when I see people commuting through my constituency. They look at some of the nice neo-Georgian exteriors of estates such as Vauxhall gardens estate, which overlooks Kennington park, and may think that they always look nice because the windows are painted. However, if they went inside those flats, they would see the real problems that exist.
How can we determine a reasonable cost? We have recently had a classic illustration of this problem. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—he is still only just the Member for that constituency—made a self-congratulatory speech on the amendment, which he assured the House, without waiting for its comments, would be of incalculable benefit to thousands of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in the Chamber, attacked Camden council for not reducing heating charges in full. What are the charges and how can they be applied in full? There is to be a remedy in the courts. The Minister has said that he is delighted that he will not have to decide what is a reasonable charge; it will be the courts' decision. If the courts' decision of what is reasonable for London Transport fares is anything to go by, then tenants' repairs will be open to mayhem.
There are one or two learned gentlemen in the other place to whom I should like to put a simple question because I am sure that it will land on their desks for them to decide. What does a judge understand by the concept of externality? What is the externality that the judge has to take into account in assessing reasonable costs to be paid by the council? If he is Oxbridge-trained, and almost certainly he is, and if he has done greats or politics, philosophy and economics he will clearly understand that it is something outside rather than inside—external rather than internal. However, if he has made his way from the labouring classes he might not view it that way. I have not noticed many judges recently making it from the labouring classes.
A judge may not know that the relevance of direct and indirect costs is crucial to this clause as to whether there are benefits from having public, municipal or collective building agencies which have externalities, can spread their services and have expertise in evaluating buildings. Such bodies will know, when it comes to evaluating an internal leak, that something is wrong with the building's flat roof. They will know that a problem has arisen time

and time again with an internal pipe. A private contractor will not know that. This means that instead of a fly-by-night cowboy patching up the job and leaving it the direct labour organisation can deal with it.
How do we assess overheads? Private contractors who want to obtain a bid do not include their overhead costs in the price. In some cases they do not even make provision for the most basic national insurance contributions. When giving their direct labour costs they do not make allowances for indirect costs such as rental and other changes.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) but I would go further and say not only that quotations should be required from direct labour organisations but that there should be a statutory requirement that when bids are made over a certain size for repairs they should be cleared by the relevant council committee and that its members should be satisfied that indirect as well as the direct costs have been included.
During the last election campaign there was a massive poster, as big as the doors of this Chamber, in Kennington park road courtesy of CABIN. It showed a collapsing house. It said:
Labour plans to nationalise your industry.
That was a patent lie. The poster implied that houses only fell down in the public sector. On my estate the chronic troubles which have arisen are due to private contractors.
We need tenants' rights and local control, but we do not need private cowboy builders ripping off the public. That is why I support the amendment.

Mr. Cartwright: I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will forgive me if I do not follow him through all the mysteries of externality. It is not a matter regularly on the lips of my constituents. If he referred to my constituents as coming from the labouring classes, he might get a rather rude reaction from many of them.
It is right to spend a little time discussing repairs, especially for local authority housing. All hon. Members who represent areas with large numbers of council properties know that that issue is one of the major causes of frustration among council tenants. They are annoyed most of all by the bureaucracy of the operation of local authorities. I am not making a political point—it affects local authorities of all political persuasions.
When my constituents first report a fault that needs to be repaired, along comes someone from the housing department. It is probably the estate officer, who looks at the problem and says that he will place an order with the works department. That is a straightforward matter, and one has merely to wait for the works department to sort it out.
However, if the problem is a little unusual, the estate officer consults the technical section of the housing department, which examines the problem. That section refers the problem to the architect's department, which in turn might have to consult external consultants with expertise in that area. All that takes time. Eventually, an order is placed with the works department. That procedure means a great many visits, which span a great many weeks. A number of promises are made, but they are usually not kept. Even when the order has been issued to the works department, there is the problem of different trades being involved. I know of cases in my constituency


where one trade installs window frames and another fits the glass. Sometimes people are left for many weeks with window frames with no glass. That sort of catastrophe affects the constituents of many hon. Members.
How will such problems be helped by the approach laid down in clause 21, and the amendments that have been proposed? There are two separate approaches to the problem. The Government believe that the whole operation of repairs should be private from the start. Once the council has approved the repair, the tenant is on his own. He can do the repair himself, bring in a firm to do whatever he wishes. It is a private arrangement. However, it still involves council bureaucracy. The council must still examine the problem, agree that a repair is necessary, decide what sort of repair is involved and what the cost will be so that the tenant knows how much he can spend. The tenant has to find a contractor. The Government's approach does not provide for any approved list of contractors. The tenant can give the work to someone that he has picked out of the advertisements in the weekly paper.
As I said in Committee, it is no part of my case to suggest that the entire building industry is filled from top to bottom with cowboys. To say that would be nonsensical. But we have all experienced a number of cases that suggest that there are some unscrupulous operators in the building industry. I put it no higher than that. We all know of cases where people have done some unpleasant things, often to the elderly, and then rapidly disappeared. There is a propensity in the building industry for firms to disappear as rapidly as they appear.
It is common sense to say that if we give tenants the right to bring in private contractors, there must be some degree of control over the operation. There must be some proof of quality and reliability from the firms which will carry out the repairs to council property.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a valid point when he said that tenants would rather not be involved in all the aggravation and hassle. Tenants take the simple view that they pay for their repairs in their rents and they expect the council to deliver the service for which they are paying. In an ideal world, they would far rather that the council did the job, and did it properly, than that they should have to argue with contractors and deal with all the problems and bother.
We are faced with a choice between the Government's approach to the problem of repairs, which is that it should be tackled privately from the word go, and the official Opposition's approach, which is that the council must try to do the repairs, but if the council falls down on the job the tenant must have a right to bring in an approved private contractor. I prefer the Opposition's approach. I believe that we should put pressure on councils to be efficient and effective. If the local authority knows that if it does not do the job properly the tenant has the right to have the job done by somebody else and charge the council, that will be a pressure wholly for the good.
9.30 pm
It is equally sensible that when a tenant takes tenders for a job the direct labour organisation—if there is one—should be among the tenderers. The direct labour organisation has a great contribution to make so long as it is efficient and effective and is able to stand up in the market place against private enterprise. It is sensible that the direct labour organisation should have to compete

against private contractors in the market for such repair work. In passing, I should like to say that although I support the Labour party's approach I should be happier if more Labour authorities operated schemes of that kind rather than seeking to do everything themselves and often doing it rather badly.
Faced with a choice between the totally private operation envisaged in the clause and the provision in the amendment, that if the local authority cannot or will not do the job properly the tenant must have the right to apply pressure, I prefer the second course. I shall therefore support the amendment.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Anyone listening to this debate would assume that the scheme was a Government initiative. I hear from my hon. Friends that the whole reform proposed over the last months with regard to tenants' rights to repairs was promoted by the Opposition, and that the Government took it up at a late date by adding this clause in Committee. I hope that those who follow our proceedings will realise that this was a Labour initiative, based on the views that we have spelt out on many occasions in our policy documents.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) moved amendment No. 68 because, as the House knows, he has great experience of housing management and control in Manchester where he built up a substantial reputation as chairman of the Manchester district housing committee. He brings to the amendment the value of many years of daily involvement in the area of repairs in relation to secure tenancies and properties.
I am not sure how it is possible for the Government to table a clause which refers to the making of a regulation to set up a scheme entitling secure tenants to the rights laid out in the clause without drawing the attention of the House to what that scheme may entail. Hon. Members cannot rationally discuss the Government's proposals without knowing what they intend. Our amendments may be ill founded. The Government may intend to comply with the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendment in the scheme when it is published. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether our amendment will form the basis of the scheme that I hope he will put to the House, but there is no guarantee even of that, as it seems that the Government can introduce the regulations without seeking approval of the contents of the scheme in a debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain the procedure that he intends to pursue so that we may be assured that we shall have the opportunity to debate the scheme when it is finally produced.
Lines 10 to 13 refer to the scheme giving entitlement to tenants as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Our amendment seeks to qualify the Government's intention as set out in the Bill by giving the local authority the chance to do the work before a private firm is called in.
Many people in this country—not just those of my political persuasion—may regard local authority repair services in the wider sense and the personnel involved in those services as important services which should be retained. The Government provisions prejudice the possibility of retaining those services where there is a wider responsibility to the community under current local government arrangements. It may be argued that it is in the public interest to maintain a fully occupied and


efficient repair service within the local authority to fulfil those wider responsibilities, but the Government are prejudicing that possibility.
Secondly, we wish to ensure that the local authority draws up an approved list so that the wide boys and the cowboys do not have access to repair works that we know are important to many council tenants and sensitive matters to our electorates.
Every day of the week, the London evening papers carry advertisements under general classifications advertising the services of so-called experts in many areas of activity. People who ring the telephone numbers and invite such experts to their properties very often find that those who arrive are cowboys incapable of carrying out the work that they advertise. I was conned on one occasion myself and I do not regard my ability to select as entirely without foundation. If they could pull the wool over my eyes, it is unlikely that many of the tenants who invite these people into their homes will be able to select and reject and to ensure that the people carrying out repairs for them are suitable.
An approved list will at least ensure that local authorities establish and make known to their tenants the people of quality and substance in repair work. Cowboy operators exist in every part of the United Kingdom and often break the law in many ways. They often do not pay national insurance contributions, do not pay their taxes and are subject to no professional disciplines. Consequently, their activities merely prejudice the wider interests of our constituents. An approved list is therefore essential.
Finally, on the right of direct labour organisations to quote, the Government introduced a small measure some weeks ago to reduce the national insurance contribution for private sector companies. In the debate on that, the problems of the Liverpool direct labour organisation were mentioned. There is a feeling in the country that the direct labour organisations in the major cities are being deliberately obstructed by the Government and their activities prejudiced by the Government's dogmatic approach. Refusal by the Government to support our amendment today will be read by those who support the operation of DLOs and recognise their importance in local authorities as a further sign of the Government's prejudice and ideological dogma in relation to those important organisations within local authorities.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: All Members who have spoken to the amendment this evening—and only Opposition Members have done so—have expressed considerable concern about the ability of council house tenants to exercise their right to have satisfactory repairs to their properties. Those hon. Members who have spoken referred to our debates in Committee and to the Opposition's amendment, which went a great deal further than the Minister's amendment, but was rejected. The amendment contained some of the safeguards that would be necessary if the system of improving the repairs procedure is to be successful in the future. While we are concerned mainly with tenants in the public sector, we should like to see this extended to the private sector. We acknowledge that repair rights exist in public health Acts and in housing Acts generally.
All hon. Members have experience from their constituencies of council house tenants who have been

dissatisfied either at the lengh of time it has taken for repairs to be completed or with the quality of the repairs. We all know that, especially at present, many local authorities are under a great deal of financial pressure from the Government and are not able to provide the service to their council house tenants that they would like to provide. The amendment we moved in Committee, which the Minister rejected, was aimed at giving a better deal to all council house tenants, in contrast to the proposal put forward by the Minister in Committee that we are discussing today.
We have five worries about the Government's proposals. First, the Government are giving the appearance of helping council house tenants but that raises a false hope because the Minister's scheme will not be of great assistance to the tenants in need of help. Secondly, under the Minister's scheme, there will be no control over the quality of the repairs made to council properties. Thirdly, the council house tenant will have the work done, will pay for the work and then recover the cost from the local authority. That is unsatisfactory. We all realise that few council house tenants would have the funds readily available to pay for a repair to be done even though afterwards they could recover the money from the local authority.
Fourthly, we are concerned about clause 21(3)(b) which suspends the landlord's obligation under a repairing covenant while any defect is being remedied under this system. In other words, if council tenants have repair problems such as those graphically outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) or of the type described by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), and decide to take advantage of the scheme, any other repair problems that come to light while the first problem is being dealt with by a private contractor will not be dealt with by the authority.
As the Minister's scheme is written, the repair obligations of the landlord are suspended for the time that it takes to settle the repair. That is unsatisfactory and dangerous for the rights of tenants. We are concerned that some local authorities may try to use this part of the scheme as a means of escaping their repair obligations overall by trying to persuade tenants to take on some responsibility for repairs, thereby suspending all the repair obligations that should be covered by the proposed legislation.
9.45 pm
Our fifth concern relates to direct labour organisations. Many of us fear that one of the reasons why the Government are promoting this scheme, which incorporates no controls on the quality of work or on who does the work and does not write DLOs into the scheme, is that they want to continue their attack to undermine DLOs. The Government, in other legislation, have already undermined their position and they intend to continue doing so. In only the past few days they have issued yet another press notice in which they explain how they will continue to turn the screw on DLOs.
The organisations are operating under many artificial constraints. They are expected to make a profit on their trading account of a size that few private building companies are able to achieve. They have to put out work to tender in a completely artificial manner and carry all the costs of that procedure themselves. The Government are deliberately making it difficult for DLOs, in the hope of


squeezing them out of existence. That is one of our objections to the Government's approach to the scheme and one of the reasons why we feel that the new clause that we introduced in Committee proposed a much better scheme for local authorities and local authority tenants.
Everyone who has contributed to the debate has agreed that in recent years council house tenants have had a raw deal. Over the past four years rents have risen by almost 120 per cent., and there are more increases due next month as a result of the Government's policy. Rents, as a proportion of the average wage, have increased considerably since the Government have been in office. I understand that 308 of the 367 housing authorities will be making a profit out of their council tenants and a profit on their housing revenue account.
Under this pressure, council house tenants are rightly demanding a better service from local authorities. We want to see them given a better service but we do not want schemes proposed to council tenants that mislead them, such as that which the Government have devised. In reality, their scheme is not an improvement. It fails to give tenants rights that they will be able to exercise. We are concerned that the Government are making promises which, in the end, will be meaningless to tenants and which will not give them the better service which they should have and which they deserve.
If the Bill is enacted with the clause as it stands, many cowboys will move into council house repair. The Minister has done nothing to control the quality of repairs. My hon. Friends have given examples of how cowboys can make many costly mistakes in the private sector. They have explained how cowboys or poor builders have made many building mistakes, which subsequently have been costly to local authorities. Probably we all have examples of cowboys who have operated in the building industry. There are those who have put asphalt floors on rotting wooden floorboards and disappeared before the asphalt has seeped through to create a new problem. The Minister is creating a charter for cowboys. Their work will cause council tenants far more headaches in future. The Government have introduced a sham proposal.

Sir George Young: Opposition Members have made enormously heavy weather of a relatively simple proposition that most council tenants could easily understand and which many of them are anxious to have available. What the Government are doing is basically giving tenants a choice. Where a local authority has failed to carry out repairs in time the tenant will have the option of doing the work himself and getting the money back from the local authority. That is a relatively clear proposition which will commend itself to most tenants.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I wonder what happens at her advice bureaux and whether she has the same experience as other hon. Members. On Fridays or on Saturday after Saturday we have a long catalogue of complaints from local authority tenants who have waited day after day for the housing department to put right relatively simple repairs. All we are doing in the Bill is giving tenants the choice to have the work done themselves, if they want to. If they do not want to avail themselves of the opportunity, they need not, and the local authority will have the obligation to put the matter right.
Opposition Members are trying to foist on local authority tenants a poor imitation of what the Government have proposed. It is hedged around with all sorts of qualifications that make it virtually worthless.
We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who managed to make a simple subject not just complex but unintelligible. He led us through a whole series of imaginative scenarios involving Georgian exteriors, epoxy resin, fire resistant doors and ventilation blocks, ending up with externalities, which somehow in his view had an enormous bearing on the subject.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and to other hon. Members who have questioned what the Government are doing that what we have suggested is happening. In the London borough of Havering a scheme has been introduced along the lines of the one which the Government propose should be made available nationally. It is intelligible to local authority tenants and to those who work in local authorities. It is saving tens of thousands of pounds for ratepayers in Havering. All the red herrings that have been introduced about inapplicability or complications are rubbish. The scheme actually works. What we are doing is making it available to local authorities throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked how it would operate. I think it would be helpful if he looked at c. 1234 and 1235 of the Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on 24 February, where there is an outline of how it would operate.
The procedure for making the regulations will be under section 151 of the Housing Act 1980 and will be subject to negative resolution.
In amendment No. 68, it is clear that the Opposition are bent on restricting the tenant's right of repair to such an extent that it would become almost useless. Their amendment would build in delaying factors so that repairs might be unattended to for much longer than under the Government's proposal.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Sir George Young: I am not giving way; I must make progress.
Not only is the reasonable time like a piece of elastic, but there could be further delay because of the need to get quotations from tenderers, not least from the direct labour organisation. In any case, where a landlord has failed to perform, tenants already have common law rights. The Opposition amendment adds nothing to those rights.
The Government's proposal is flexible enough to allow tenants to carry out repairs themselves. Of course, there will be limitations on the type of repairs on safety grounds, but the Opposition amendment entirely denies tenants the right to do the work themselves. As the hon. Lady said in Committee:
We think that the tenant should be limited in his choice." —[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1983:, c. 1241.]
They had suggested that the tenant should not be able to do the work himself but should have to go out to tender, with one of the tenderers being the DLO. However, it is because the DLO has not done the work in the first place that the tenant will be interested in doing it to himself. What would happen if the tenant went out to tender and the DLO submitted the lowest tender but still did not do


the work? The tenant would be back where he started and he would have wasted two or three weeks. So from the tenant's viewpoint he would be far worse off than under our proposal.
On amendment No. 69 I can be slightly more conciliatory. The House will know that we embarked on consultation arrangements with the landlord organisations before we laid the regulations under the Bill. The provisions sought in the amendment will be subject to discussion within the consultation. If we think it useful to provide a requirement along the lines of amendment No. 69, we shall consider whether this can be incorporated in the regulations.
It is worth reminding the House that public sector landlords already have a duty to tell tenants of their repairing obligations, as set out in section 32 of the Housing Act 1961. This explains what landlords' obligations are. Landlords may take on additional obligations in their tenancy agreements.
Section 41 of the Housing Act 1980 requires public sector landlords to publish up-to-date information about their secure tenancies in simple terms. Among the information to be supplied is the effect of the landlords' repairing obligations. The discussions that we are having with landlords' associations will lead to certain categories of repairs being excluded from an absolute right for tenants to carry them out themselves. There are obvious cases where safety is a paramount factor. I do not wish to anticipate what the other categories might be.
I accept that the Opposition's proposal for landlords to publish time limits, within which the landlord undertakes to carry out repairs where the absolute right would not apply, might be useful. We shall explore this possibility with the local authority associations. Against that background, I hope that amendment No. 69 will not be pursued.
Amendment No. 68 would be a fraud on tenants. It would not give them the rights that they need and which I think the House is anxious that they should have. I hope that, if amendment No. 68 is pressed to a Division, it will be resisted.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I thank the Minister for what he has said about amendment No. 69. As the hon. Gentleman has taken on board the intentions of the amendment, the Opposition will not be pressing it to a vote. However, we feel that amendment No. 68 is crucial and that the Minister has failed to understand the necessity for it. Nowhere does clause 21 state that the tenants will have the right to get the repair done where the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time. The clause is a blatant attempt at privatisation. It will enable the private sector to move in, and repairs to be done, whether or not the landlord is running an efficient repair and maintenance service and whether or not the landlord has failed to carry out the repair in time.
The Minister blames the direct labour department for any repair that is not adequately carried out by the local authority. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that many local authorities already have their repair services run by private contractors and that private contractors fail to carry out repairs on time. The Sefton metropolitan district council, which covers my constituency, is trying to privatise the repair service. Private contractors fail to

carry out the repairs. Tenants in my constituency would love to go to the direct labour department to ask it to tender, to carry out the work and to charge the local authority. In that way, they would be able to get an efficient repair done by a building concern that is concerned about the tenants and about the council houses they are maintaining.
The Minister has failed to understand the concept of programme maintenance. The most efficient way of maintaining council houses and ensuring that the need to carry out many repairs does not arise, with the benefits that this brings to tenants and the local authority, is to operate on a programme basis. The Bill's proposals, if implemented on a widespread basis, destroy any possibility of local authorities planning programme maintenance in an efficient and effective manner for the benefit of tenants.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) not to blame the civil servants for the clause or to claim that they do not know about council properties. It is Ministers who are responsible for the clause. It is blatantly political. Ministers have obviously instructed civil servants, who may or may not understand what council housing is about, to draw up legislation that will privatise the repair and maintenance services of local authorities and hit direct labour departments so that the Government's friends in the private sector can benefit from the public purse. It is all being done in a way which will be detrimental and not beneficial to tenants.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 262.

Division No. 100]
[10 pm


AYES



Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Abse, Leo
Dixon, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunnett, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (Newton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freud, Clement


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cant, R. B.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Graham, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Haynes, Frank


Crowther, Stan
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hoyle, Douglas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Huckfield, Les


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)






Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Roper, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ryman, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sever, John


Kerr, Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lamond, James
Short, Mrs Renée


Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


McTaggart, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Newens, Stanley
Wardell, Gareth


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


Ogden, Eric
White, Frank R.


O'Halloran, Michael
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Parker, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Penhaligon, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Jo
Wright, Sheila


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. George Morton and


Robertson, George
Mr. Ron Leighton.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brotherton, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Ancram, Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Buck, Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Banks, Robert
Burden, Sir Frederick


Bendall, Vivian
Butcher, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Berry, Hon Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Cope, John


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Corrie, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costain, Sir Albert


Bright, Graham
Cranborne, Viscount


Brinton, Tim
Critchley, Julian





Crouch, David
Lyell, Nicholas


Dickens, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Macfarlane, Neil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacGregor, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eggar, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Emery, Sir Peter
Major, John


Eyre, Reginald
Marland, Paul


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mates, Michael


Farr, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger


Gardner, Sir Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Montgomery, Fergus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morgan, Geraint


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M, (N'hampton S)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Mudd, David


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Myles, David


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Needham, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hannam, John
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hooson, Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Porter, Barry


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Rathbone, Tim


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rossi, Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Loveridge, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Richard
Speed, Keith






Speller, Tony
Waddington, David


Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walker, B. (Perth)


Squire, Robin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stevens, Martin
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, John
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Tapsell, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wickenden, Keith


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Donald
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—

'Heating charges
41B.—(1) In this section—
heating authority" means any of the following, namely a local authority, a development corporation, the Commission for the New Towns or the Development Board for Rural Wales which—

(a) operates a generating station or other installation for producing heat; and
(b) supplies heat produced at that installation to any premises;

heating charge" means an amount payable to a heating authority in respect of heat so produced and so supplied whether or not, in the case of heat supplied to premises let by the authority, it is payable as part of the rent;
heating costs" means expenses incurred by a heating authority in operating a generating station or other installation for producing heat;
and a secure tenant is one to whom this section applies if a heating authority supplies heat produced at such an installation to the dwelling-house of which he is such a tenant.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require heating authorities to adopt such methods for determining any heating charges payable by secure tenants to whom this section applies as will secure that the proportion of heating costs borne by each of those tenants is no greater than is reasonable.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for entitling secure tenants to whom this section applies, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, to require the heating authorities concerned—

(a) to furnish to them, in such form as may be prescribed by the regulations, such information as to heating charges and heating costs as may be so prescribed; and
(b) where any such information has been so furnished, to afford them reasonable facilities for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the information and for taking copies or extracts from them.

(4) Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, regulations under this section may provide for any question arising under the regulations to be referred to and determined by the county court.

(6) Any reference in this section to heat produced at an installation includes a reference to steam produced from, and air and water heated by, heat so produced'.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 24

GIVING AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN INITIAL NOTICE

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 23, line 38, leave out
'provision of Part II of the 1936 Act'
and insert 'enactment'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44.

Sir George Young: Government amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 are drafting amendments.
An important aspect of the present building control system, and one that will continue to be important under the new private certification proposals, is the group of controls that are outside the building regulations themselves but whose operation is triggered by the depositing of plans for building regulations approval. These controls are exercised by local authorities, and are generally known as the linked powers. They deal with such matters as building in short-lived materials and building over sewers.
Under private certification these powers will remain with the local authority, and it is therefore important to ensure that there is a satisfactory mechanism for triggering them in the case of privately certified developments, where the local authority will not get plans deposited with it in the ordinary way.
The Bill as introduced was defective in this respect, and these amendments put that right. The amendments will ensure that the initial notices served by private certifiers will be accompanied by all the information that authorities need to operate all the relevant linked powers, including those linked powers in local Acts, such as the Cumbria Act 1982, which allow conditional approval of plans to ensure the safety of parking places in buildings. Local authorities will be able to impose conditions on developments using the powers in their own Acts or in the general enactments, just as they can now under the present system.
The first two amendments substitute the term "enactment" for the reference to part II of the 1936 Act, and amendment No. 44 defines the meaning of "enactment" as including local Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

PLANS CERTIFICATES

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 29, leave out lines 9 to 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 26 to 30, and 40.

Sir George Young: This group of amendments is consequential upon the new rights to obtain a determination from the Secretary of State, on payment of a fee, under clause 27(2) and clause 40(2), when a dispute about plans has arisen regarding the application of the proposed new building regulations.
In the Bill as introduced there was a provision giving a right to obtain such a determination, but it was limited


in two respects. It could be used only when the dispute specifically concerned the use of approved documents and when the dispute was between the developer and the local authority.
In the light of comments made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and representations made by the construction industry we have removed both these limitations, so that determinations will be available regarding the application of the regulations generally, and also when the disagreement is between a developer and an approved inspector. We think it reasonable to charge a fee for that service in order to deter frivolous applications and to recover costs.
10.15 pm
In order to remove the previous limitations we have provided in clause 27(2) that a person in dispute with an approved inspector as to whether plans are in conformity with the building regulations may apply to the Secretary of State for a determination. That position would arise when a developer had asked the approved inspector for a plans certificate under clause 27(1) and he was unable to give it.
Where the dispute is with a local authority, it will arise when it has rejected plans deposited under section 64(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 on the grounds that they are defective or show that proposed work would contravene the building regulations. Accordingly, we have provided in clause 40(2) and in an amendment to section 64(3) of the 1936 Act a right to apply to the Secretary of State for a determination.
At the same time we are repealing the existing right of appeal to a magistrates' court for a determination. The courts do not have much expertise in technical building matters and the provision has been little used. The construction industry and the professions agree that the new right of appeal to the Secretary of State will be much more useful.
The group of amendments under consideration are consequential. The main amendment in the group is amendment No. 27. Its purpose is to ensure that an applicant who has been given a determination on the application of the building regulations by the Secretary of State will still be able to appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
The substance of the amendments was agreed by the Standing Committee but the amendments made at that stage are defective. They are also split between clauses 27 and 40. The amendment puts them all together in clause 46. The remaining amendments in the group are consequential. They will ensure that all the provisions for new building regulations and the new procedures for determinations of their application will be brought into operation at the same time.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 40

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 41, leave out lines 1 to 4.— [Sir George Young.]

Clause 46

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 42, line 13, at beginning insert—
'(1) Section 69(3) of the 1974 Act (appeals against certain decisions of the Secretary of State) shall be amended as follows—
(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) on a reference under section 64 of the 1936 Act or section 27 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983;";
(b) after the words "local authority", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person approved for the purposes of Part II of the said Act of 1983"; and
(c) in the definition of "the relevant person" for paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(ii) as regards a reference under the said section 64 or the said section 27, means the person on whose application the reference was made;".'.— [Sir George Young.]

Clause 47

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made:

No. 28, in page 42, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
sections 27(2), 40(2), 41(2), and 46(1)'.

No. 29, in page 42, line 22, leave out 'repeals' and insert 'repeal'.

No. 30, in page 42, line 23, at end insert '(2)'.—[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 66, line 12, column 3, leave out from 'Act"' to end of line 15.—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 28

FINAL CERTIFICATES

Mr. Graham: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 29, line 20, after 'certificate', insert
'(which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State'.
The Under-Secretary of State has fairly demonstrated a method whereby the Government have been prepared not necessarily to change their mind after the Committee stage of the Bill but to reflect on a way in which the Bill can be refashioned in the light of what was discussed in Committee.
On Report the Opposition are faced with two choices. They can either simply repeat the substance of an amendment that was sought in Committee or suggest


completely new amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that Labour Members have sought to concentrate on six main issues that had merit in Committee and which we still believe have some merit. That is why we have sought to introduce them today.
The Minister is right to say that the Bill has two main parts. One relates to the right-to-buy provisions, particularly for tenants of charitable housing, and the other relates to the building control system. When we debated the issues arising out of changes in the building control system, Labour Members dealt with three or four main matters about which we had been advised by professionals and others and which they wanted to see improved if the Bill were to become an Act. They advised us that the Bill ought not to have a Second Reading or a Third Reading.
One matter related to the raison d'etre of the Bill's reliance upon insurance principles. We shall have to go back to the professionals and say that we have failed in that respect. The second was the need to be clear that the Bill ensured that the independence of the approved inspector was beyond doubt. I shall have to go back to the professionals and say precisely the same. The third aspect on which we wanted amendment was the manner in which certain public bodies appeared to be specially favoured by the exceptions. We failed to move the Minister on that.
Last, but not least, in the hierarchy of the matters that have caused great unease outside the Committee is the way in which Ministers have sought to rely on secondary legislation at every possible opportunity. The Minister may have good technical grounds for doing this, but the Government have deliberately sought secondary means of bringing forward the detail rather than simply putting a word or two on the face of the Bill as primary legislation. The latter would have caused satisfaction outside and left beyond dispute precisely what the Government have in mind.
For example, on page 29 of the Bill, clause 28 says:
Where an approved inspector is satisfied that any work specified in an initial notice given by him has been completed, he shall give—

(a) to the local authority by whom the initial notice was accepted, and
(b) to the person by whom the work was carried out, such certificate with respect to the completion".

All that we are seeking to do is to insert after "certificate" the words:
which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
I am certain that the Minister will assure us that our amendment is unnecessary because the Bill contains, by prescription and by words in other clauses, that which we are seeking to achieve. In other words, there will be the provision that the plans finally deposited will need to contain all the detail that is required. The Minister may tell us that very early on we discussed detailed plans—on what is now clause 24—and the word "detail". The Minister reassured the Committee then that it was his intention to ensure by secondary legislation that plans would need to be accompanied by such detail as he would prescribe as necessary. In other words, we are not very far apart, and both sides of the House and those outside the House are seeking to achieve the recognition that it is valuable if the plans that are to form such a crucial part in these matters are accompanied by some detail.
I sought advice from outside the Committee, from among professionals as to what they would consider necessary detail. I told them that it was no good asking me to press for detailed plans and they must tell me the details they wanted. Unfortunately, if one professional gave a set of details that he considered would be essential, it would be different in part from the proposals of some of the others, certainly on structure, drawings and materials. However, the argument is not about the precise nature of the detail. We want the Bill to say that the plans when finally presented will be accompanied by such detail as is laid down in the prescribed regulations.
Hon. Members will know that the Minister and those in charge of the Bill are not backward in using prescribed forms. There are 56 occasions in the Bill when the world—which will have to make the Bill work—will have to wait until the Minister decides the precise detail and the manner in which he will use his powers. We are invited to await the detail of prescribed grounds, fees, form, details, time, notice, schemes, period, purpose, regulations and circumstances. The Opposition are worried that, when that body of prescribed details, forms and fees is presented, it is likely that we shall have to argue about them in great detail in a short time. We may have an hour and a half or three hours, but we shall have to go over all this again.
The tragedy is that we have sat in Committee for more than 100 hours and the Bill has been before the House since November, yet the professionals and councillors who will have to carry the burden must wait three or four months more to grapple with all the details. That is not fair.
If the Minister's advisers tell him that there is no need to accept this amendment, and he does not, he will be acting in the face of the wishes of many professionals. They see merit in the inclusion of these words. If the Minister accepts the amendment, they might look more kindly on the Bill's philosophy. Some people have persisted and will continue to persist in another place in the belief that the Minister may accept some of the amendments that he may not think are necessary because the professionals think they are.
At the moment, local authorities are the only repositories of information about buildings erected in their district. It was suggested in Committee that more than 90 per cent. of buildings depart to some extent from the original plans. I hope that the Minister will say that he understands our anxiety in this respect. Local building control offices are used as repositories of knowledge, not simply for the benefit of building inspectors but for developers, builders, architects, surveyors, planners and members of the public. The latter may go there saying that they have a little worry because their house seems to be in a special area. The building control officers can say, "Yes, we have dealt with a similar problem before. These are the plans that we used when we dealt with that problem in another place. This is how the builder got round the problem." The officer can go to drawers, boxes, or files—perhaps even microfilm these days—and find the necessary information. The local building control office is a place where men and women like to go because there they have free access to the experience and guidance that may have been accumulated over a century.
There are problems with the strata of the land in many parts of the country. In Committee, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) said about


some of the problems that local building control offices have when there is mining subsidence. Such information gathering should continue.
The Opposition are least important in these matters—it is the fears of people outside that really matter. They feel that, with the Bill in its present form, there is a real possibility that the present high standing of the plans that finally make their way to local building control offices will be diminished. The Minister is well aware that the Bill does not require approved inspectors to retain plans except for their own files. I hope that the Minister can assure hon. Members and those outside the House that the present well-liked system will continue. We all know about the problems of asbestos and cement, and we wish to ensure that wherever information has been deposited—we can think of no better place than a council office—it is always available to the public.
10.30 pm
At present, about 400 local authorities are in a network of regional and national associations and can exchange their views. In future, the building regulation certifier may not be one local authority but 50, 60 or 100 professionals. In that case, experience may be disparate and it may be difficult for the public to draw upon it.
I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because it seeks to reassure the public that building plans, when finally deposited, are accompanied by such detail as may be prescribed. It is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can respond to it.

Mr. Litherland: This amendment seeks to ensure that plans will be submitted to a local authority when final certification is given, not just when the work reverts to the local authority. The Minister's argument that there is excessive bureaucracy is false, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, at present the local authority acts as a depository for information about buildings within its boundaries.
My hon. Friend mentioned asbestos. In the large development of deck access flats in Manchester, large quantities of asbestos were used. Without the plans, we could never have found out in which flats asbestos was present. It is of great benefit to the health of our citizens that we can obtain the necessary details at a central point. It is estimated that more than 90 per cent. of buildings differ from the original plans deposited. Planning is not static, but ever-changing, so it is essential that the information is collated and available when requested. Professionals and members of the public can use this facility, which is a mine of information. The information is all collated at one source. I understand that several thousand inquiries per week are received, and to fragment this information will lead eventually to utter confusion.
When someone is purchasing a house it is simple for the solicitor or whoever is acting for him to go to the local authority planning department to find out whether planning permission has been given. That applies not just to housing but to any building. We believe that all the information should be kept in one place so that everyone can gain access to it. Local authorities have gained expertise in these matters over many years. The facility to issue details and give expert help to all the people who go to the town hall would be lost. Plans have to be amended and kept up to date. In a document, NALGO makes the point that

With the introduction of the approved inspector, there will be no requirement to provide plans to the local authority, as a result there will be a serious diminution in the information available to the public and professions, especially when wishing to make alterations to buildings in the future. The Bill, as currently drafted also does not oblige the approved inspector to retain the plans once a final certificate has been issued except"— as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has said—
for his own personal records. The amendment as now drafted will ensure that in future approved inspectors will have to provide plans to local authorities as prescribed by the Secretary of State. The amount of information contained in these plans will be set out in regulations and need only be sufficient to ensure that the local authority continues to be a repository of information for the future.
I cannot see any reason why the public cannot have this facility for their information and protection. We dealt with this subject in detail in Committee and, as has been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) gave a number of examples where it would be essential to have the plans in case of a disaster.
I can give an example of an area in my constituency where it is essential to have the plans to see what went wrong with an estate that is now being demolished. We are seeking legal advice as to who is responsible for the faults. The original plans of the development will have to be studied. If private individuals can retain the plans, and they are then scattered around, the system that was built up for the public's information and safety will be thrown into confusion. I support the amendment.

Sir Albert Costain: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. In theory, it is extraordinarily good, but in practice it is unbelievably unrealistic. Is the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggesting that for every house built on an estate of 1,000 houses there should be 1,000 plans deposited with the local authority?
The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to know what is in a building. He spoke about plans, but most of his speech should have been about specifications. For example, he referred to asbestos. It is unlikely that the type of asbestos used will be shown on the plan. It will probably just say that it is asbestos sheet. However, the specifications would give details. The specifications are also easier to store. The amendment does not specify how long the plans should be kept. Is it 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years? Where will they be stored? Who is to have access to them?
Advice should be given to every architect who designs a building to keep sufficient plans that could be consulted should anything go wrong with the building. I think that architects do that automatically, anyway. If they do not keep the plans, they have to resurvey the property and redraw them. There is no point in imposing a legal obligation on them.
The amendment has good intentions, but it is not worth the additional expense that would be entailed.

Mr. Welsh: I must tell the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) that plans are already deposited with local authorities. There are thousands of inquiries each week about those plans. I would be the last to say that those inquiries were necessarily justified—they may have been made in fun. But business men who make such inquiries, and spend money on sending architects to study the plans, do so to gain knowledge of an area. It could be a mining area, a swamp area or a clay area. Surely it is better for the contractor or anyone else—

Sir A. Costain: Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a plan that shows a clay area? Has he ever seen a plan deposited with a local authority that gives such information?

Mr. Welsh: I have seen plans for mining areas that give a tremendous amount of information about the workings below ground. I was chairman of the architect's department in the Doncaster metropolitan borough, which has the largest acreage in the country, and chairman of the planning department and also involved in the technical services and engineering branch. I have a little knowledge—but not a lot—of the matter. In Doncaster there was a sub-committee to examine special buildings. I was not the chairman but left the operation to three people, together with my architect and planner, to consider the details and report back to me. Because of that operation we made few mistakes. In fact, private enterprise took advantage of advice from my planners and architects. Even the National Coal Board took advantage of that advice, which was based on plans deposited with the local authority. Amendment No. 63 merely seeks to ensure a similar system.
10.45 pm
I should have thought that the Minister would be grateful to have this knowledge. Building control and planning does not include all the information, but there have been times when we have failed by not having enough information. One recalls Higher Lune, which cost us a new swimming bath at the beautiful colliery village of Askern. Thank God we knew the strata and what was involved so that it cost only £125,000 to put right. We knew that because there was sufficient detail in the plans. That is just one example of how beneficial this is for local authorities. If plans and information as to materials and so on were available for private enterprise, we could protect that sector as well.

Sir Albert Costain: The hon. Gentleman makes my case with more clarity than I did. He admits that the plans were available. I could not agree more that one needs geological plans for the substrata, but I do not believe that every house plan in his constituency should include all that information—and if all that information is not included the plans are of little value for his purpose.

Mr. Welsh: It would be wrong to enter into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman about this, but it is surely correct to make certain that we have the material. What is wrong with ensuring that people and buildings are protected? I see nothing wrong with that, but I see something wrong with not protecting them. If some kiddie lost his life because this was not done, I should be very hurt. The cost of administration is well worth it if it saves one kiddie's life.
We are simply trying to ensure that protection. In a free society we are entitled to do that. That may not be so in totalitarian states, but that is a different kettle of fish. This is a free society. We pass laws of the land and the most important aspect of the law is to see that no one is hurt. That is final and important. We seek to ensure that no one is hurt by the legislation. It may not come in for years. On the other hand, it just may come in and that protection is worth all the money in the world. It is vital.
If the approved officer is the only person in possession of the documents and can throw them away—it is entirely

up to him whether he keeps them—we may find ourselves in a very embarrassing situation. We simply seek assurance. We won a couple of points in Committee, and, as I have said to the Minister before, it is a wise man who can change his mind and only a fool who cannot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to this small amendment to guarantee some protection for people by ensuring that the plans are with the local authority. In any area, most people rightly hold the local authority in high esteem in matters of public safety, just as the national Government are held in high esteem in these matters.
I hope that on this rare occasion the Minister will accept the amendment.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) rightly said that the Opposition took exception to various aspects of the Bill, but I am surprised that he has alighted on this matter, which seems to raise no major issue of principle. The matter was dealt with adequately in Committee, and the Opposition did not press it to a Division on that occasion. I am also rather surprised that, having criticised us for providing in the Bill that
The Secretary of State may by regulations
prescribe, the hon. Gentleman then tables an amendment which says, in effect, exactly that.
Amendment No. 63 would require an approved inspector, when he gives a final certificate in respect of work, to provide the local authority with plans of the work for record purposes. The Secretary of State would be able to prescribe the details contained in such plans and so, in effect, the plans would be "as built" plans. We see no need for a local authority to receive plans for record purposes. The amendment would impose not only an onerous and, possibly, expensive obligation on building owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) rightly pointed out, but would provide a wholly new function for local authorities.
As I explained in Committee, local authorities do not receive such plans for record purposes under the existing system and we see no reason why they should do so under certification. It was suggested on two occasions that this might help people to identify some suspect materials, but building plans would not show the composition of materials that had been used in a particular building, so it would not enable people to tackle that problem.
At the moment, local authorities receive full plans, but before the work is started. A building does not have to be built in accordance with the plans; it has to be built in accordance with the building regulations. As the hon. Member for Edmonton conceded, the vast majority of buildings depart in varying degrees from the plans deposited. In other words, the plans kept by the local authority at the time are not necessarily accurate plans of the building that has been erected, so the amendment would not parallel any provision that currently exists. It is not clear why the local authority would want the plans. If people want the plans of a building, the owner would have them, the certifier would have kept them, and I expect that various other professionals who had been associated with it would also have kept them. So the records are available if they are needed for any purpose.
I am sorry to end the final debate on Report in this tone, but we cannot accept the amendment. It would be a bureaucratic initiative for very little public gain. It would not perform the function that has been outlined by Members who have spoken in favour of it. The


information, if it is needed, is available elsewhere. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Graham: I am sorry that the Minister has used the argument that what we are asking for is not at present the vogue. Under the present system, local authorities are not obliged to receive and build up a library of plans of work as built. In the next few months we are contemplating a radical change in the present system and in all sorts of relationships. The Minister may believe that the present efficiency and service to the community of local authority building control departments will continue without change. Surely the whole raison d'être of this part of the Bill, if there is anything to it, is that there will be a new set-up. If the Minister is saying, as he and his colleagues have said more than once, that it is a matter of choice and that the individual developer can choose either the old route or the new route and that there is no question of force, it is obvious that the Government hope, by one means or another, to encourage people to use the new route.
We shall oppose the new route, but if the new route is established we shall examine what that means in practice. The Minister said that there is no need for the council to be obliged to be the repository of plans. The Minister said that owners, certifiers and professionals will have their own plans which will be available. Who says that they will be available? Who says that the owner will keep his plans and will not destroy them? Who says that the professional, who has a library of plans, will keep them and will not sell them, throw them away or forget all about them? One relies on the possibility that some individuals, out of the goodness of their hearts, keep detailed plans of the work that has been done and are willing to make them available to the public. If that is how we are to go on, I fear for the safety of a great many people.
This is perhaps the last opportunity to discuss this important change. The Minister should know that those currently involved in local government building control arrangements are more than a little fearful about the number of times that they will be left to carry the can when, under the new arrangements, approved inspectors, for one reason or another, not necessarily through dereliction, have departed the scene.
In Committee, as shown in column 1904 of the Official Report, the Minister set out the three ways in which a final certificate should be given. One of them was in the event of the local authority having to take over the approved inspector's responsibilities. The manner in which it takes over the work is set out in other clauses. The Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee that the Government could envisage few occasions when the authority would have to take over. Those closest to him must have said that in their opinion the approved inspector, whether an architect, an engineer or any other professional, was unlikely to cause the authority to take over.
The building control officers, the Society of Chief Building Control Officers and, more importantly, NALGO have provided us with a great deal of briefing. Their knowledge of those who are likely to become approved inspectors causes them to make the assessment that the authority will have to pick up the tab on more occasions than the Minister foresees.
We are asking only for that which the Minister has already promised. On an earlier occasion the Minister said that it would be his intention to prescribe the detail that would need to accompany the initial plans. We are asking only that the final certificate shall be accompanied by the detail that is prescribed. We are asking for the same range of detail that the Minister has told us will accompany the initial notice.
We are disappointed that the Minister, who has always been courteous and fair, has failed to understand the anxiety of those upon whom we all rely, the public servants and private professionals, who feel that the amendment would be helpful. We accept that it may be costly, but if there is another Summerland disaster, with grave derelictions of duty and waivers of building byelaws, it may well be said "It is a pity that the depositing of plans and details to the local authority was not insisted upon." It would then be far too late to say that at 11 o'clock on 23 March the House had the opportunity to do something about it. We are satisfied that this is a proper amendment and we shall press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 262.

Division No. 101]
1:10.58 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael


Alton, David
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Freud, Clement


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Golding, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Ted


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Douglas


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Leadbitter, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Leighton, Ronald


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dixon, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas, Dick
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William


Dunnett, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)






Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Newens, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stallard, A. W.


Ogden, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Parker, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Tilley, John


Penhaligon, David
Torney, Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Race, Reg
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Richardson, Jo
Wardell, Gareth


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
White, Frank R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitlock, William


Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Roper, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Woodall, Alec


Ryman, John
Wright, Sheila


Sever, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


Short, Mrs Renée
Mr. George Morton.


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Corrie, John


Bendall, Vivian
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Critchley, Julian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Body, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eyre, Reginald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brinton, Tim
Farr, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Buck, Antony
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Butcher, John
Gardner, Sir Edward


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan





Goodhart, Sir Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morgan, Geraint


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, John Selwyn
Myles, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Osborn, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hooson, Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Porter, Barry


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Rathbone, Tim


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Royle, Sir Anthony


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John
Shepherd, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Luce, Richard
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Nicholas
Spence, John


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Macfarlane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Mac Kay, John (Argyll)
Stainton, Keith


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stanley, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


McQuarrie, Albert
Stevens, Martin


Major, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mellor, David
Thompson, Donald


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter






Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Wakeham, John
Whitney, Raymond


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wickenden, Keith


Walker, B. (Perth)
Wiggin, Jerry


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Wall, Sir Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ward, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wheeler, John
Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion.

Clause 31

GIVING, ACCEPTANCE AND EFFECT OF PUBLIC BODY'S NOTICE

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 32, line 15, leave out 'is, or which' and insert
'acts under any enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit and is, or'.

No. 65, in page 32, line 19, after 'out', insert
'in relation to a building belonging to it'.

No. 43, in page 32, line 38, leave out
'provision of Part II of the 1936 Act' and insert 'enactment'. — [Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 35

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 34, line 43, at end insert
'enactment" includes any enactment contained in a local Act'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 36

EXEMPTION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC. FROM PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF BUILDING REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 35, line 35, after 'body', insert
'which acts under any enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit and is'.

No. 56, in page 36, leave out lines 15 to 17.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 39

COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED DOCUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 38, line 20, at beginning insert
'A failure on the part of any person to comply with an approved document shall not of itself render him liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but'.

No. 58, in page 38, line 21, leave out 'failed to comply with' and insert 'contravened'.

No. 59, in page 38, line 22, leave out 'proof of compliance' and insert '(a) a failure to comply'.

No. 60, in page 38, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert
'establish liability; and

(b) proof of compliance with such a document may be relied on as tending to negative liability'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 40

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 39, line 17, leave out from 'not' to end of line 18 and insert
'except in prescribed circumstances reject the plans on the ground that they are defective with respect to any provisions of the regulations which are so specified or that they show that the proposed work could contravene any of those provisions'.

No. 26, in page 41, leave out lines 1 to 4.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 44

INTERPRETATION OF PART III

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 41, line 39, at end insert—
'"contravention", in relation to any provision of building regulations, includes a failure to comply with that provision;'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 46

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 42, line 13, at beginning insert—
'(1) Section 69(3) of the 1974 Act (appeals against certain decisions of the Secretary of State) shall be amended as follows—
(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) on a reference under section 64 of the 1936 Act or section 27 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1983;";
(b) after the words "local authority", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person approved for the purposes of Part II of the said Act of 1983"; and
(c) in the definition of "the relevant person" for paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(ii) as regards a reference under the said section 64 or the said section 27, means the person on whose application the reference was made;".'.— [Mr. Stanley.]

Clause 47

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 42, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 20 and insert
'sections 27(2), 40(2), 41(2), and 46(1)'.

No. 29, in page 42, line 22, leave out 'repeals' and insert 'repeal'.

No. 30, in page 42, line 23, at end insert `(2)'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Schedule 1

EXTENSION OF RIGHT TO BUY TO CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD

Amendments made:

No. 31, in page 43, line 6, at beginning insert—

'1. In section 6(4)(a) of the 1980 Act (assumptions on the grant of a lease) for the words from "for 125 years" onwards there


shall be substituted the words "with vacant possession for the appropriate term defined in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act (but subject to sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph)".
2. In section 14 of the 1980 Act (change of landlord after notice claiming right to buy or right to a mortgage) for the words "the freehold of there shall be substituted the words "the interest of the landlord in".
3. In section 16(1) of the 1980 Act (completion) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) if the dwelling-house is a house and the landlord owns the freehold, a grant of the dwelling-house for an estate in fee simple absolute; and
(b) if the landlord does not own the freehold or (whether or not the landlord owns it) the dwelling-house is a flat, a grant of a lease of the dwelling-house for the appropriate term defined in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to this Act (but subject to sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph);".

4. At the end of section 17 of the 1980 Act (conveyance of freehold and grant of lease) there shall be inserted the words "and other matters".
5. Section 18 of the 1980 Act (right to a mortgage—terms of mortgage deed) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section, in that provision as so renumbered the words from "but the Secretary of State" onwards shall be omitted and after that provision as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(2) Where the mortgagor's interest in the dwelling-house is leasehold and the term of the lease is less than 25 years, subsection (1)(b) above shall have effect as if the reference to 25 years were a reference to the term of the lease.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe additional terms to be contained in any deed by which a mortgage is effected in pursuance of this Chapter or vary the provisions of subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2) above, but only in relation to deeds executed after the order comes into force."

6. In subsection (3) of section 20 of the 1980 Act (registration of title) for the words "subsection (2)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1)(b)" and for subsections (1) and (2) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(1) Where the landlord's title to the dwelling-house is not registered—

(a) section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (compulsory registration of title) shall apply in relation to the conveyance of the freehold or the grant of a lease in pursuance of this Chapter whether or not the dwelling-house is in an area in which an Order in Council under section 120 of that Act is for the time being in force and, in the case of a lease, whether or not the lease is granted for a term of not less than 40 years;
(b) the landlord shall give the tenant a certificate stating that the landlord is entitled to convey the freehold or make the grant subject only to such incumbrances, rights and interests as are stated in the conveyance or grant or summarised in the certificate; and
(c) section 8 of that Act (application for registration of leasehold land) shall apply in relation to a lease granted in pursuance of this Chapter notwithstanding that it is a lease for a term of which not more than 21 years are unexpired.

(2) Where the landlord's title to the dwelling-house is registered, section 22 of the said Act of 1925 (registration of dispositions of leaseholds) shall apply in relation to a lease granted in pursuance of this Chapter notwithstanding that it is granted for a term not exceeding 21 years."

7. In section 24 of the 1980 Act (vesting orders)—

(a) in subsection (3) after the word "If' there shall be inserted the words "the landlord's title to" and the word "land" shall be omitted;
(b) in subsection (4) after the words "an absolute title" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may require, a good leasehold title"; and

(c) in subsection (5) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted the words "the landlord's title to" and the word "land" shall be omitted.',

No. 32, in page 44, line 13 at end insert—
'(1A) In paragraph 12 (common use of premises and facilities) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted the words 'the dwelling-house is a flat and".'.

No. 33, in page 44, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 26 and insert
'For the heading of Part IV of Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act (charges on freehold) there shall be substituted the heading "CHARGES AND OTHER MATTERS".
(1A) In paragraph 18 of that Schedule'.

No. 34, in page 44, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert—
'4. In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) after the words "long tenancy" there shall be inserted the words "or a tenancy granted in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of this Act"'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Schedule 5

TERMS OF A SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASE

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 54, line 22 after 'a', insert 'written'.

No. 38, in page 54, line 38, after 'a', insert 'written'.

No. 39, in page 58, line 15, after 'a', insert 'written'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 66, line 12, column 3, leave out from 'Act"' to end of line 15.

No. 41, in page 66, line 28, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 8(8) the words from the beginning to "and".'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Order for Third reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales' Consent signified.]

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mr. Stanley: This Bill embodies two quite different but equally radical and, in our view, beneficial reforming measures: the reform of building control and the further extension of the right to buy and also of the tenant's charter. The first will, I am in no doubt, prove to be of long-term benefit to the construction industry and the second will enable more tenants to take advantage of the unique opportunity of home ownership that this Government have made available to them.
The efficiency and speed of the building control system bear directly on the efficiency and speed of the entire construction process and, equally, the form of the building regulations themselves—their intelligibility, their flexibility, their ability to reflect higher building standards and advances in building materials—is crucial to the success and competitiveness of our construction industry.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the section of the Bill dealing with building regulations and that many hon. Members have had large amounts of correspondence on this from


professional organisations and NALGO, which argue that the Bill will weaken the whole system of building control? What are the Minister's comments on that?

Mr. Stanley: We have debated this at great length, over many months. Broadly, our comments are that as far as the form of the building regulations is concerned, there is a remarkable degree of unanimity that the particular changes we propose to make are highly desirable. The change of the option of private sector certification is more contentious, but it is our view that nothing has occurred since Second Reading to suggest that it is not perfectly feasible and reasonable to offer the option of private certification. Therefore, we are inviting the House to give the Bill a Third Reading on the basis, essentially, on which it was introduced in that respect.
Building control is certainly complicated. It is technically and legally difficult. I acknowledge, too, that electorally the reform of building control has no great appeal. It is indicative of the way in which the present Government are concentrating, even in the last full session of this Parliament, on matters of strategic and long-term importance to key sections of the economy, of which the construction industry is one, that we have given time to the building control proposals.
The Opposition have found something to complain of in the building control proposals. Their complaints seem to stem from the deep prejudices that we know they have against the private sector, and they have sought to prophesy that every imaginable apocalypse would result from the enactment of these proposals. The Opposition argued in Committee that there would be be danger to public safety, that buildings would collapse. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said that an orgy of corruption would sweep through the ranks of the architects, surveyors and structural engineers and that the greatest den of iniquity of all would the one body that can do private certification more or less immediately—the National House Building Council.
Listening to the Opposition's observations on the building control proposals, I was reminded of the debates that took place about 150 years ago, when leading landowning peers in another place sought to resist the early Bills to build railway lines. They argued with total conviction that the predictable and certain effect of building railways across the fields of rural England was that the cows would cease to calve for evermore. Just as that argument was shown to have no basis in reality, equally the Opposition's dire prophesies about the building control provisions in this Bill will not be borne out in practice.
I am certain that the building control proposals, the new building regulations, in the form of functional requirements and approved documents, will prove a significant advance on the existing regulations. I acknowledge that both the functional requirements and the approved documents are extremely important. We are anxious to make certain that we get the detail correct, and we shall continue, as we have done for more than two years, to consult closely about the detailed form of the functional requirements and the approved documents. Equally, I am sure that the private certification option will prove practicable—earlier in some areas, such as low-rise housing, than in others—and that it will be a useful and beneficial extension of choice for builders.
There is no compelling or necessary reason why building control should remain a public sector monopoly. The skills and expertise required are as available in the private sector as they are in the public sector. There are no grounds for claiming that private sector architects, surveyors and structural engineers have less skill or less professional integrity than their counterparts in the public sector. I believe that after a few years' operation of the system of private certification, the question asked will be not why we did it but why we did not do it very much sooner. The new building regulations and the introduction of private certification are sensible and worthwhile strategic and industrial reforms to be added to the many others that the Government have introduced in industry.
Equally worthwhile and sensible are the new rights for secure tenants of local authorities, new towns and housing associations in the Bill. I am not simply referring to the right to buy. One of this Government's most important housing achievements has been the transformation that we have secured in the legal status and legal rights of the 6 million families who rent in the public sector through the tenants' charter—the tenants' charter that was voted down by the Labour Government in 1977, and which was reintroduced only as an empty political gesture in March 1979, when it had no chance of reaching the statute book.
The Bill will extend the tenants' charter in two important respects. It will extend the right to improve that we introduced in the 1980 Act by giving a right to repair as well, but this time with the tenant being able to claim reimbursement from the local authority. The local authority will be able to save money, because the amount of the reimbursement can never be more than what it would cost the local authority to do the repairs itself, and it can be less. The tenant also gains by being able to get his repairs done more quickly. Councils such as the London borough of Havering have shown that a right to repair is administratively practical and financially cost-effective. Getting repairs done is perhaps now the biggest single problem for tenants generally in the public sector. I am glad that we can give some useful help here through the right-to-repair scheme.
The other extension of the tenants' charter is the amendment that I moved earlier to give greater statutory protection to those hundreds of thousands of tenants on district and communal heating systems. Many of those tenants face high heating charges with no right to information as to how they are calculated and no right to challenge those charges in court if the basis on which they are assessed is not in the tenant's view reasonable. The Bill will provide such rights and is a further useful extension of the tenants' charter.
The Bill will also help those tenants who want to buy their homes. In the light of the experience of the right to buy that we have gained over the past two and a half years, we have taken this opportunity to remove points of obstruction and difficulty placed in the way of tenants exercising their legal rights by certain Labour councils. For instance, the Bill will restore the right to buy to those Norwich tenants who were pressurised into surrendering it by that council when it made the agreement to an exchange conditional on the tenant forfeiting his right to buy.
The Bill will give greater powers to the Secretary of State to protect tenants when their councils try to impose unreasonable and onerous covenants on them. That has been another major source of complaint and difficulty. It


will give tenants the ability to seek financial assistance from the Secretary of State to initiate legal proceedings against a council which fails to carry out its legal obligation towards a tenant who is seeking to exercise his right to buy. In other words, the Bill will make it easier for tenants to obtain their right to buy in accordance with the provisions that Parliament has enacted.
The Bill will also benefit several new groups of tenants who have been unable to exercise their right to buy until now. The 50,000 or so whose homes are on leasehold land will get the right to buy. So will the 80,000 or so tenants of charitable housing associations in houses that have been publicly funded in the same way as those belonging to non-charitable housing associations where the right to buy already exists. Those tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to buy outright will now get the right to buy on a shared ownership basis, which will effectively bring the opportunity of home ownership within the reach of virtually every public tenant who can command a mortgage.
The right to shared ownership is one of the most important and, indeed, revolutionary advances brought about by the Government. The right to buy is undoubtedly one of the most significant and beneficial social revolutions of this century, resisted once again tonight by the Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic parties. No other legislation has given access to capital to more people more quickly. No other legislation has given the opportunity of asset ownership to those who have little or no assets. Half a million tenants have benefited from the right to buy already. Many more would like to follow in their footsteps. The Bill will enable them to do so and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: This is the only so-called major housing legislation from the Government during this session. What is the sum total of the Government's proposals? Will the legislation ease our major housing problems or not? Will it result in the building of more council houses? Will it result in the building of more private houses? Will it mean the employment of more building workers, reduce the ever-increasing number of homeless people or do anything to help those families in desperate need on housing waiting lists?
The Bill will do nothing for any of those problems. It will not help build one new house. It will not rehouse one family on any waiting list. It will not employ one more building worker. The Bill is irrelevant to the main housing problems that Britain is facing, and the Government have deliberately chosen to ignore those.
The Minister said that the first part of the Bill was an extension of the compulsory sales policy that the Government have followed, and it is. The Government are now changing their mind and those categories that were excluded in the Housing Act 1980 for very good reasons are now being brought into the new legislation. Compulsory sales will be extended to leasehold properties and will create more problems for local authorities to administer. They will be extended, most important and most dangerous of all, to charitable housing associations and housing charities, which were excluded in 1980. I am confident that sense will prevail in the other place and that

clause 2 will end up where it should be—on the scrapheap, thrown out by people who have more sense and more knowledge of real housing problems than the Government.
If, by any chance, the other place retains clause 2 in the Bill, the Bill will have serious consequences for charity law. In a retrospective way, it will undermine the good work done by many housing charities over many years, and may even wipe out some charities. It will reduce the stock of reasonable, rented accommodation for families and people in need. It will create more inequalities between different tenants of charitable housing associations and prevent housing associations from building replacement homes, so that they will not be able to carry out the work for which they were established. It will discourage voluntary effort altogether because the voluntary effort that has gone into the charitable housing movement in the past is now being turned into private gain by the Government.
Then there are the clauses on shared ownership. The Government are so keen to sell council houses that they have a new scheme for those who cannot afford to buy their council house. Instead of buying all one's council house, one can buy half or 62·5 per cent., regardless of the consequences. The Government have not explained to the tenant who becomes a part owner the consequences that he will face. He will have to pay rent and will have repair obligations. The Minister and his Department are not keen to point out the problems that will arise. They will do anything to push council house sales.
As the Minister has said, an important part of the Bill deals with housing control. It is the privatisation—another obsession of the Minister—of building control. We do not dispute what the Minister said about the need for rationalisation of building regulations, but the legislation is not about that. It is about the privatisation of building control. The Minister has consulted widely. He talked to the Institute of Building Control Officers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Institute of Municipal Building Management, the Consumers Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institution of Structural Engineers, and he has ignored all the advice of all the professional bodies in this business. No one, among all of those working in this business, believes that the Government's proposals are workable. Only those who do not know what is involved confidently claim that they can take on this privatisation.
This evening, even the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is one of the few Conservative Members with any experience in this business, acknowledged, when he withdrew his new clause on liability, that the Government's ideas would be unworkable until the problems of liability and insurance were worked out. There is no sign of that as yet.
The Bill is about giving more power to the Secretary of State—power to interfere more with local authorities and to change charity law and even legal aid provisions by introducing help for tenants who wish to take on a local authority. We do not know where the Secretary of State intends to stop his bid for more and more power. He seems to be as power-mad as his predecessor, and that is dangerous.
The Opposition wish that the Secretary of State and his Ministers would spend a small proportion of their time on real housing problems rather than Bills such as this. When the Minister comes to the House with plans to build more houses, to reduce rents from their present record level, to


get building workers back into jobs and to tackle the real housing problems, he may deserve some support. This Bill does nothing to solve those housing problems and, if it becomes law, we shall repeal it as soon as possible.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I do not wish to detain the House but I should like to make two points.
First, I am disappointed that clauses 38 and 39 were not discussed, either in Committee or on Second Reading. I hope that the issues in them will be discussed carefully in another place. They are important and need detailed examination.
Secondly, I am deeply sorry that my hon. Friend the Minster was not able to be more helpful about my amendment No. 62, which would have extended the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations who live in properties that were acquired mainly with public funds either before or after 1974.
I therefore wonder whether my hon. Friend can help in another way. He has already made generous provision for time served as a tenant with another association or local authority to be allowed to count towards the statutory deductions that are allowed. After what he told us about the enormous number of properties that are still being acquired by housing associations, may I ask him to consider inviting the Housing Corporation to give special assistance to tenants who are caught in the trap of being a tenant of a charitable housing association in a property that was purchased before 1974 so that they can obtain suitable alternative accommodation for purchase nearby, even if a loss is sustained as a result?

Mr. Cartwright: On Second Reading I made it clear that our support for the Bill was heavily qualified because we regard it as a mixture of the good, the bad and the irrelevant. There is some sensible tidying up of anomalies in the right-to-buy legislation, especially in relation to leasehold property.
I welcome the strengthening of the position of tenants who exercise the right to buy and find that they are obstructed by powerful local authorities. I also welcome the steps that are being taken to strengthen the rights of tenants who face service charges and restrictive covenants imposed by local authorities that do not want the right to buy to be meaningful.
Unlike the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I welcome what is being done about shared ownership. It is a step in the right direction. I am glad that the Minister singled out the provisions that relate to the greater rights of tenants on a district heating system because, as he knows, the groundwork for that part of the Bill was done by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
With regard to the optional privatisation of building control, I find little evidence to suggest that builders and developers will leave the tried system of local authority building control for the much newer concept of the approved private inspector. I do not share the Minister's optimism that that will somehow yield a tremendous growth in the construction industry.
Clause 2 is crucial to us. It concerns the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. We tabled an instruction to delete that clause

on Second Reading. We hoped that, once the Government understood the strength of the opposition to that proposal throughout the country, they would relent.
Our hopes have proved groundless. The Government stood as firmly against amendments in Committee as they have stood today against an amendment that came from their Back Benches. Clause 2 is damaging to charitable housing associations, is dogmatic and will do nothing to help housing conditions. On those grounds alone, we shall vote against giving the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House and the country now understand that the Alliance supported the Bill on Second Reading but will vote against it on Third Reading.
The extension of the right to buy, both to those to whom we believed that we gave it in the Housing Act 1980 and to those to whom it is given now for the first time, will be most welcome. The Conservative party has showed that it is the party of the whole nation—for council tenants as well as for owner-occupiers. Those who believed that they could ignore Labour party policies in the past have seen, by the actions of the GLC and Greenwich council, what happens if they do so. If they wish to maintain the right to buy and to have the same opportunities as most Labour Members of Parliament and many Labour councillors, they had better keep a Tory majority in the House at the next election. I ask all council tenants, not just those who live in my constituency, to consider carefully the commitments made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and to reject him and all those who support him at the next election. Council tenants deserve the right to own their homes, because it spreads wealth and mobility and is a very good thing.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I was tempted not to speak on Third Reading, but because of the Minister's supreme optimism, which was not very convincing, I must add a few words.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why does not the hon. Gentleman vote against the Bill?

Mr. Ross: I shall certainly vote against it. I hope that the Minister's predictions will prove to be true, but I doubt it. We shall vote against Third Reading because it is immoral to oblige charitable housing associations to sell their post-1974 built properties and because we fear that the weakening of the present building control system could have disastrous results. The Minister may not be in office when that happens, but some Minister will have to pay the bill.
I regret that, because of the guillotine, we have not had time fully to debate the Bill on Report. It will create confusion among the public and will destroy a service in which the professions have confidence, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who is a chartered surveyor, said a few moments ago. There is doubt about the genuine independence of the proposed new system, and there will inevitably be pressures from commercial interests. Anyone who has served in local government knows that that is true. The Bill will lead to a lowering of standards at a time when we should be moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: There were not so many hon. Members in the Chamber when we were discussing the Bill on Report—[Interruption.]

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are so many sub-committees going on around the Chamber, and so many people talking, that it is impossible to hear even an hon. Member who is standing just behind me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I, too, am finding it difficult to hear.

Mr. Brown: You were kind enough to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you said that, because of the length of other hon. Members' speeches, I could have only three minutes. I honoured my undertaking to you and sat down after those three minutes. However, in that short time, I asked the Minister two questions. I asked him to confirm that any trustees who are affected by clause 2 will be absolved of their responsibilities to the charity commissioners. It was a straightforward question, but, during a 15-minute speech, he deliberately refused to answer it. Will he assure the House now that any trustee who implements clause 2 will be absolved of his responsibilities? It is an important matter, because I and others who have served on charities have been taken to task by the charity commissioners, on issues much smaller than this, who claimed that we were abrogating our trusteeship. The House, and all those who volunteer to be trustees, should be assured that their future will not be prejudiced by clause 2.
The Minister has waxed long throughout the evening and in Committee about the privilege of the right to buy. I asked him why he has not extended that to Crown estate tenants. Their homes are provided by public funds and those people are entitled to have the same right. If his argument is right for housing associations, it is right for Crown estate tenants. He did not find time to answer me. Why is the right to buy not available for everyone?
My third question, which I did not put to him because I did not have time, is: does the Minister believe that the building regulations covered in part III will apply to scaffolding around buildings? Many local authorities use scaffolding which is now falling down. [Laughter.] One of my constituents was hurt by falling scaffolding. It is not amusing to me, because I am fighting for compensation for her. I cannot obtain it. The local authority and the contractor have got out of their responsibilities. I hope that the Minister can assure me on that point. I am dissatisfied with the Bill and shall vote against it.

Mr. Stanley: I shall happily reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member within the Bar? I see that he is.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, as the Minister has spoken, he can speak again only by leave of the House. I am objecting to his speech. I do not believe that he has had the leave of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the Minister to speak for a second time on Third Reading.

Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. The answer to his first point is contained in clause 2(2), which provides the necessary protection for the trustees of charities.
His second point about Crown estates—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a further point of order?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes. Is it not a fact that on Third Reading one may discuss only what is in the Bill and not what one would like to see in the Bill? The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke about what he thought was wrong because this and that were not in the Bill. I believe that that was out of order and, therefore, the Minister has no right to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) wished to raise points about an amendment. He did not have time to do so.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member was here. The Minister is now replying to that point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a further point of order?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes. Whether or not I was here before, I am here now. I am raising a point of order now. It was not on Third Reading before, but it is now. What the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch raised on Report stage is not relevant to Third Reading. Third Reading is restricted severely to what is in the Bill, not to what was in an amendment in Committee or on Report. Whatever the hon. Member raised in Committee, it is not in the Bill, and therefore neither he nor the Minister has the right, according to Standing Orders, to raise those points.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 168.

Division No. 102]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Bendall, Vivian
Brooke, Hon Peter


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brotherton, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Best, Keith
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bryan, Sir Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Budgen, Nick


Blackburn, John
Burden, Sir Frederick






Butcher, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Mrs Jill


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockeram, Eric
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John


Corrie, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Costain, Sir Albert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McCrindle, Robert


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Macfarlane, Neil


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eyre, Reginald
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Major, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marland, Paul


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mawby, Ray


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morgan, Geraint


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, John Selwyn
Myles, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Osborn, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hooson, Tom
Pink, R. Bonner


Hordern, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Porter, Barry


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Rathbone, Tim


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas





Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thompson, Donald


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Rossi, Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Shepherd, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Silvester, Fred
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Spence, John
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stainton, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wickenden, Keith


Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stevens, Martin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.



Tapsell, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. John Cope.


Temple-Morris, Peter



NOES


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, Jack


Alton, David
Douglas, Dick


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnett, Jack


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (Newton)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Ewing, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Freud, Clement


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hoyle, Douglas


Crowther, Stan
Huckfield, Les


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Hon Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
John, Brynmor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Lambie, David






Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Sever, John


Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée


Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Silverman, Julius


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


McTaggart, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Stoddart, David


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tilley, John


Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Park, George
Warden, Gareth


Parker, John
Welsh, Michael


Parry, Robert
White, Frank R.


Penhaligon, David
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Whitlock, William


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Race, Reg
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wright, Sheila


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



Roper, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Nissan Car Project

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Hal Miller: By one of the strange coincidences of the arcane process by which subjects emerge for Adjournment debates, it is exactly 12 months to the day, but 25 minutes later, since I last rose to address the House on the subject of the Nissan car plant. While I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as a good west midlands representative, who we are delighted has been given additional responsibilities in heading up a drive for greater innovation in the region, I must tell him that people in the west midlands will be looking with a critical eye at the conditions attaching to the Nissan project to see whether it is likely to prove of benefit to the region or to act to its detriment. That was by no means made clear when I last raised this subject and explains why I have been attempting for the past six weeks since the Secretary of State returned from Japan to have an opportunity to air these issues.
The subject is of importance in the context of our trade balance with Japan and the need for investment in Britain to offset that imbalance so as not to provoke an irresistible demand for limitations on the present open system of trade on which both the Japanese and British economies, but ours markedly more so, are crucially dependent. Whether we welcome the project must depend on the extent to which there will be local content in it. That has not been made clear and, so far as it has been made public, we are given to understand that the initial stage of the project is for the production of about 200,000 per year rising later to perhaps 500,000 cars. To put it in context, that figure of 200,000 cars is roughly equivalent to the current production of the Metro at Longbridge of 4,000 cars per week.
We should bear in mind that there is considerable overcapacity of production in the world and particularly in Europe, where there is an overhang of some 3·5 million vehicles, with the threat of increased installations in Japan but no such increase in the Japanese market. So the supposition must be that this increase in production is intended for export. Because of the various limitations on their exports and because of their comparative manufacturing efficiencies, the most profitable market for the Japanese at the moment is Europe.
Therefore, our attitude must be determined by how much local component content is to go into the vehicle. We have been told that it will be 60 per cent. rising to 80 per cent., but in a comparable co-operative venture in Italy between Nissan and Alfa Romeo the content is to be 80 per cent. from the start, with the Italians providing the power train. I must ask my hon. Friend whether he can divulge to us this evening what the content requirement is to be and whether it is to be weight or by value, which has relevance, especially to makers of components that are light in weight, such as electronics, the manufacturers of which would be arguing for value, while the heavier end would be more interested in the weight content. Attitudes will be dependent upon the definition.
The importance of the project to our components industry is easily understood when it is realised that only 33 per cent. of new registrations of passenger vehicles in


Britain in 1982 were built from British components. The gap lies with the assemblers of imported kits, notably Vauxhall and Talbot. That trend is increasing all the time, and only about 36 per cent. of Ford's United Kingdom requirement comes from local sources. The component industry is faced with the need to modernise its production facilities and upgrade its product to be internationally competitive at a time when its market is seriously declining and the prospects are for further decline. The introduction of the Nissan project on the initial scale of the Metro production without safeguards for component makers must represent a serious threat.
In the light of the overcapacity that I have described, we must also ask where the additional vehicles will be sold. The seriousness of the definition of "local content" can perhaps best be illustrated by the fact that a 60 per cent. requirement by value could be met without any British content except a battery and windscreen wiper, and perhaps a little trim, on the basis of ex-works price. That illustrates vividly the importance of a high starting content. The figures that I have given are hard; they are bassd on co-operative production.
If other factors entered into the price equation, such as transfer pricing between a head company and the subsidiary of a group, the distortion would be correspondingly greater and more damaging to Britain. There is a real anxiety and a real reason why component makers are looking to the Government for insistence on an 80 per cent. content from the start. If that is not possible within the negotiation, it should at least be established on a declared timetable from the start. But there are doubts as to whether it should be possible to enforce such a timetable once the operation had begun and public funds had been invested.
The content must be the criterion on which judgment is finally made as to whether the project will bring net benefit in terms of employment to the west midlands. The anxieties are real because, if the project is to go ahead on the basis of the original timetable of 1984–86, by now the Nissan company should have begun homologating the parts—that is, ordering, testing and installing them in production vehicles for assessment. Not only should that process have started, which it has not, but clearly it needs to be undertaken in this country if we are to have any security as to the fairness of the procedure. I very much hope that my hon. Friend can say something about what the agreement contains regarding the homologation of parts and how far ahead of the installation of the factory it should take place, as it is a real cause for concern.
Another factor relating to the critical nature of the 80 per cent. content is that Government-funded BL has recently announced agreement with Honda to increase the United Kingdom content of the Acclaim model to 74 per cent. and has undertaken to look for additional local sourcing on top of that figure. It was reported in the Financial Times, whose widely respected correspondent, Mr. Kenneth Gooding, wrote recently on the subject, that BL is looking in the new deal with Honda for the XX car for a local content of 80 per cent. If Nissan is allowed to establish here on the basis of 60 per cent., there is little chance that Honda would be content to abide by the higher requirement which apparently has recently been agreed.
The decision on the matter is of direct relevance also to the success of future products from BL and the take of that company from our component makers. Of the production of 200,000 cars by Nissan, one half was

intended to be exported, but I do not see how that condition could effectively be administered or insisted upon. I note that present expectations are that if the 50 per cent. export requirement were met, there would be a loss of market share to both Ford and BL of about 2 per cent. and of 1 per cent. to Vauxhall and another 1 per cent. to the others.

Mr. John Spellar: With regard to both exports and sales, and also as to import requirements, once Nissan is established here what sanctions can the Department of Industry use to enforce any of these arrangements?

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that it would be difficult to enforce anything once the public funds had been invested in the project. That is why the conditions need to be established and accepted before the project goes further. Hon. Members have a right to know what the conditions will be.
A project that meets the criteria on content that I have set out, introduces into this country new management techniques involving both men and materials and, in particular, achieves the reduction in the inventory that is so striking a feature of Japanese production, should be welcomed. It should be welcomed in the west midlands, where the Minister has recently assumed responsibility for spearheading the innovation drive. It will inevitably be regarded in the midlands as a test case of the Government's intentions towards the region.
The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday during the debate on the Budget were welcome as a first step towards dealing with the problems of the region but we want to know to what extent flesh is to be put on those bones. If the Nissan project is to be welcomed, why should it not be welcomed in the west midlands? Why should not the English Industrial Estates Corporation be allowed to provide the site and the buildings in the west midlands on terms as favourable as elsewhere in the country? Otherwise, we shall once more see new production, new methods, new machinery established in another part of the country, detracting from our possibilities, in the same way as a computer firm, established in the west midlands, has recently been diverted to Scotland because of the grant system. We have a great need in the west midlands for exactly that sort of production. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is in no narrow nationalist frame of mind that I raise these questions once more tonight. They are of vital concern and need a clear response.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on his uncanny sense of timing in achieving the selection of the Adjournment debate tonight on the anniversary of the very day on which he last raised the subject. There must be some significance in that. The more fey among us may be able to advise me how this has happened. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on maintaining their constituency interest in this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch has been tenacious in his support of the interests


of the west midlands and of its greatest industry. It is therefore understandable that he should take a close interest in this project. As a fellow west midlands Member with a personal and ministerial interest in the future of the motor industry, I am glad to have the opportunity to explain again how the Government see the Nissan project both nationally and in relation to the west midlands. It may be helpful to begin with some general remarks about the motor industry in the United Kingdom in partial response to my hon. Friend and as background to what I shall say about Nissan.
The Government recognise that the motor industry is a major and vital part of our manufacturing base. The west midlands is still its heart. The Government are determined to see that the west midlands car assembly and component industry is given the chance to fight back in reconquering our domestic markets and establishing a better presence in international markets. Great progress has been made recently by BL and a great tonic for automotive engineers in the west midlands and across the country would be a continuation of the 20 per cent.-plus market share currently achieved by BL. It may be difficult to maintain the magnificent level of the 25 per cent. figure reached recently by BL but we have great hopes that this figure marks the beginning of a new trend and that the company has begun the long march back into its traditional market areas and into the justified affections of the motoring public.
I need not remind the House, any of my hon. Friends or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Spellar) that, under the present Administration, assistance of £1·23 billion has gone into BL. We have seen a second manifestation of the success of this aid in the production of the Maestro, which has received endorsement at the highest level of the Government. I should not neglect to mention—it would be unsuitable not to mention—the fact that there are other manufacturers in the United Kingdom. We hope that General Motors, Ford and Talbot will continue to be successful and increase their market share from their British plants and with their British-based models.
They, too, have made determined efforts over the past three years to bring British plants up to European levels of efficiency, and in many cases this has been achieved by the joint endeavours of management and work force. Provided that these improvements are maintained, there is a real prospect of reducing the far too high proportion of our vehicle needs which are met by imports and of reestablishing our export capabilities.
Vauxhall's recent decision to expand substantially the volume of cars produced in the United Kingdom—a vote of confidence in the United Kingdom as a manufacturing location—and the increasing proportion of Sierras which Ford plans to build here should help stabilise import penetration in cars during 1983 and bring it down below the appalling figure of 58 per cent. recorded last year.
While giving credit where it is due, we must at the same time recognise that the industry still faces severe difficulties. Its search for efficiency has taken place over a period when the automotive sector worldwide has suffered a prolonged and deep recession. The world's manufacturers produced 5 million fewer vehicles in 1981 than in 1979 and 1982 figures will unfortunately but doubtless show a further decline. For United Kingdom

manufacturers, particularly the traditionally strong exporters of commercial vehicles and components, this has meant significantly reduced volumes, as their markets grew smaller, and fierce competition for the business available.
For many companies therefore it has been a period of major readjustment, a process of sometimes painful rationalisation and reorganisation, which may not yet be complete. Even now the pace of recovery in world markets is still uncertain. What is important is that the industry should make every effort to ensure that, as the markets recover, it is in a position to match the competition. This will require continuing investment in new plant, products and processes. While this is a task for companies themselves, the Government are ready to help wherever they can.
Already, under its Support for Innovation programme, my Department is contributing towards research and development expenditure by the automotive and related industries, totalling around £150 million over the next few years. These are projects—for which up to one-third support is available—which will help bring on the new products and processes which will influence competitiveness in the second half of the 1980s.
A particular problem of which all of us in the Chamber tonight have no doubt been apprised by component suppliers in the west midlands area is the gap between the first stages of research and development and taking a product to market. I would commend to the House the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his contribution to the Budget debate:
I am extending the support for the innovation programme by an innovation-linked investment scheme, to which we are allocating about £40 million. Projects will be eligible for investment support under the scheme, either when development work is being supported by the Department of Industry or if it would have been eligible for such support had the firm applied. This addition will help to fill a gap and will bring products out of the backroom and into the showroom."—[Official Report, 21 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 556.]
My right hon. Friend, his colleagues and I will have to fine-tune this proposition, but I hope that my hon. Friend finds some reassurance there. I hope he agrees with my analysis that it is this gap that our friends in the industry in the west midlands have constantly referred to, and we seek to use this policy to help them drive through that gap and out into the market.
There are in addition other forms of selective assistance available, including, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned in another part of that Budget speech, the re-launch of the small engineering firms investment scheme—SEFIS 2—with £100 million over three years. It is worth noting that the west midlands gets about twice as much SEFIS support per head of population as the national average.
There is a long way to go before our motor industry is fully competitive. I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is the companies, not the Government, who can make reality of the hopes of revival, though we obviously do what we can to help. I believe that there is now, however, a real prospect of a substantial and viable motor manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom for years to come. As I shall explain, the Government's view is that Nissan's coming here, on the right terms—I emphasise to my hon. Friend, on the right terms—would make a major, indeed unique, contribution to that objective.

Mr. John Spellar: Perhaps the Minister will explain, first, how bringing an extra 200,000 capacity into the country will assist British companies' viability. Secondly, even after the terms are negotiated and the company is established here, what mechanism is there in the Department of Industry to enforce those terms?

Mr. Butcher: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall try to reach those points as quickly as I can.
I come now to the main subject of the debate tonight—the prospective Nissan investment. A year ago, in the equivalent debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, set out for the House how the Government saw the Nissan project. Now, one year later, I am glad to have the opportunity to do so again. I make no apology to the House for going over some of the same ground as my hon. Friend did. I do so for two reasons—first, because our overall attitude to Nissan's project is much the same as it was then, and, frankly, because it is in the nature of talks that cover matters of commercial confidentiality that there is not much that I can say to the House on the details of our discussions with the company.
My hon. Friend outlined last year the general reasons why the Government welcomed inward investment and specifically inward investment from Japan. I should like to run through once again why we have welcomed the prospect of a fully-integrated manufacturing operation in the United Kingdom from Japan's second largest motor manufacturer. In particular, I shall explain why we should welcome such a project, despite suggestions from some quarters that it could impede the recovery of present United Kingdom motor manufacturers, including BL. This is an argument which the Government have thought about carefully, but we do not think it valid. On the contrary, we believe that the right Nissan project will be of considerable benefit to the British and European motor industries.
Our industry's doubts about Japanese investment in the United Kingdom are understandable enough. It has had first-hand experience of the competitive strength of Japanese vehicles, in third markets and in Europe and the United Kingdom. Its fear is that allowing a Japanese company to build cars in the United Kingdom could, under certain circumstances, simply provide another route, as my hon. Friend said, for Japanese products to displace its own, avoiding the voluntary restraint exercised by the Japanese industry on direct exports since 1975.
The Government attach importance to the inter-industry talks between the SMMT and JAMA, and would not be prepared to see them undermined by a simple assembly operation in the United Kingdom. We are well aware of the risk that a certain type of investment by a Japanese manufacturer might not benefit the United Kingdom. However, it has always been understood that Nissan's project would amount to a fully integrated manufacturing operation, with high local content. We do not see this as a threat to the United Kingdom motor industry, but rather as an opportunity. Let me explain, in the few minutes that are left, why we take this view.
Nissan is the leading Japanese exporter of cars into the United Kingdom, where Datsun cars have become well established. It is the fourth largest motor manufacturer in the world. Its competitive strength, like that of other Japanese vehicle manufacturers, is immense. Previous Japanese investors in the United Kingdom have shown that Japanese management practices and manufacturing techniques do not work only in Japan. They can establish, and have established, highly successful and competitive operations in the United Kingdom with British work forces. These companies have become a part of British industry, as their European and United States predecessors in inward investment have done. There is no doubt that Nissan would be an efficient and highly competent vehicle producer based in the United Kingdom, where the "demonstration effect" of its practices and its competitive edge would provide a valuable stimulus to British industry.
Existing car manufacturers and assemblers are unlikely positively to welcome further competition in the European car market, whether from Nissan or from anyone else, but that is a very different thing from saying that Nissan's coming would not be good for the vehicle manufacturing and assembly industry in the United Kingdom. The question is whether the British industry, including Nissan, would be a stronger or a weaker industry.
This is where the component factor comes in. If a Japanese manufacturer was displacing other domestic manufacturers' sales with cars which had a much lower local content, the net effect on the domestic component industry could be negative, even allowing for displacement of imports and for direct exports. That is why the Government have always insisted on, and Nissan has always proposed, high local content. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, then Minister for Industry, explained in his original announcement on 29 January 1981, the company's objective would be to produce at 80 per cent. local content, after a build-up from 60 per cent.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the difficulty of raising the local content after the event, so to speak. I should like to respond to that matter in greater detail. We do not want a kit assembly operation. We want the engine to be built in that manufacturing facility. The Government would not welcome an assembly operation, or a kit operation from Nissan or anyone else, if that were proposed. This high local commitment will bring new business to the component industry, if we handle the negotiations correctly. It will also bring it valuable new relationships with a sophisticated and demanding customer.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o' clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.